ArticleActa stomatologica Croatica2017
Comparison of Shaping Ability of 10 Rotary and Reciprocating Systems: an In Vitro Study with AutoCad.
Article in Acta stomatologica Croatica, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Changes in the Surface Area and Volume of Hyflex EDM Instruments after Multiple Uses.Acta stomatologica Croatica · 2025Article
- Article
- Shaping ability of 2Shape and NeoNiTi rotary instruments in preparation of curved canals using micro-computed tomography.BMC oral health · 2021Article
- Comparative evaluation of cleaning efficiency of single file NiTi rotary system during root canal treatment procedure - A scanning electron microscope study.Journal of conservative dentistry : JCDArticle
- A comparative evaluation of remaining dentin thickness following biomechanical preparation of teeth using different rotary file systems: AnJournal of conservative dentistry : JCDArticle
- AnJournal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
- Shaping Ability of 2Shape and WaveOne Gold Files Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography.Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the cutting are, root canal anatomy preservation and non-instrumented areas of F360®, F6-SkyTaper®, Hyflex-EDM®, iRACE®, Neoniti®, O.Shape®, P.Next®, Reciproc®, Revo-S® and Wave-One-Gold® size 25 files. MATERIALS AND
methods300 teeth with a single straight root and a circular or elliptical root canal were divided into 10 groups (1-F360®, 2- F6-SkyTaper®, 3-Hyflex-EDM®, 4-iRACE®, 5-Neoniti®, 6-O.Shape®, 7-P.Next®, 8-Reciproc®, 9-Revo-S® and 10-Wave-One-Gold®) cut into 3 cross sections using an ultrafine cutting disc. They were photographed under a stereo microscope and preinstrumentation analyses were made before rebuilding the teeth with# 10 K- File and epoxy glue. A glide path was created with #10 and #15 K files and each group was instrumented using rotary or reciprocating systems. Cutting areas, root canal anatomy preservation and non-instrumented areas were analyzed using the AutoCAD 2015 Levene's test, the Welch´s test, and the Games-Howell´s test. The Pearson's chi-squared test was used for statistical analysis.
resultsLevene's test showed
conclusionsIn cutting area, P.Next® and Reciproc® were superior in coronal third, Neoniti® and Hyflex EDM® medially and apically and Neoniti® and Reciproc® overall. Regarding the root canal anatomy preservation, all systems were similar. For non-instrumented areas, all systems achieved similar results coronally, but Reciproc®, Neoniti® and Wave One Gold® were superior in middle third and P.Next®, Reciproc®, Hyflex EDM®, Neoniti® and Wave One Gold® were superior in apically.
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.