ArticleBMC oral health2017
Use of artificial primary teeth for endodontic laboratory research: experiments related to canal length determination.
Article in BMC oral health, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Conventional methods and electronic apical locator in determining working length in different primary teeth: systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical studies.Evidence-based dentistry · 2025Pooled it
- Trial
- Ex vivo accuracy of three electronic root canal length measurement devices: X-smart pro+, root ZX mini, and propex pixi.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- A new teaching model with artificial teeth containing simulated pulpal tissue.Dental research journal · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDue to the scarcity of exfoliated/extracted human primary teeth with complete roots, artificial teeth were developed as an alternative to be used for educational and laboratory research purposes. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of using artificial primary teeth for conducting laboratory research through an experiment related to canal length determination, comparing artificial teeth with natural teeth.
methodsThirty anterior and 21 posterior artificial teeth, and the same number of natural primary teeth were selected. After preparing the access cavity, the root canal length was determined by two examiners twice using three different methods: radiography and two electronic apex locators. Then, the actual root canal length was measured by inserting a K-file up to the apical foramen (reference standard). Accuracy was calculated using Bland-Altman analysis and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The inter- and intra-examiner reproducibility was also calculated using the ICC.
resultsThe methods using the electronic apex locators showed better accuracy in both artificial and natural teeth. Trends observed with artificial primary teeth were similar to those observed with natural teeth, except for the results in artificial anterior teeth.
conclusionsThe model of artificial teeth might be a good alternative for educational purposes; however, improvements are necessary to employ these teeth for research purposes when considering experiments for canal length determination.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.