ArticleIranian endodontic journal2018
Intra-manufacture Diameter Variability of Rotary Files and Their Corresponding Gutta-Percha Cones Using Laser Scan Micrometre.
Article in Iranian endodontic journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dimensional and cross-sectional compatibility of contemporary nickel-titanium files and their corresponding gutta-percha cones: A micro-computed tomography study.The Saudi dental journal · 2026Article
- Ex Vivo Evaluation of the Fit of Matched Gutta Percha Points in Human Root Canals Prepared With the Corresponding Nickel-Titanium Files.Australian endodontic journal : the journal of the Australian Society of Endodontology Inc · 2025Article
- Thermal Behavior Variations among Commercial Gutta-percha Brands: An Optical Thermography Study.Iranian endodontic journal · 2025Article
- Diameter and taper variability of gutta-percha cones adapted to TruNatomyTM and RotateTM rotary file systems.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2023Article
- Adaptation of a Single-Cone in Prepared Teeth with Two Reciprocating Systems.Iranian endodontic journal · 2022Article
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
introductionManufacturers offer gutta-percha (GP) cones matched with different sizes of endodontic files as an attempt to simplify the obturation process and create a tight seal in the canal. The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether intra-manufacture GP diameters matched the diameters of their corresponding files at different levels using laser micrometre. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Twenty files and corresponding GP master cones of Reciproc R40 (40/0.06) (VDW, Munich, Germany), WaveOne Large(40/0.08)(Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), ProTaper F3 (30/0.09) (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), and Mtwo 40/0.06 (VDW, Munich, Germany) were examined using laser micrometre (LSM 6000 by Mitutoyo, Japan) with accuracy of 1 nm to establish their actual diameter at D
resultsThe diameter of GP master cones was significantly larger than that of the corresponding files at all levels in all brands. ProTaper GP diameter was closest to the file diameter at D1 (GP=0.35, File=0.35 mm), and D3 (GP=0.48, File=0.49).
conclusionWithin the same manufacturer, GP cone diameters do not match the diameters of their corresponding files. Clinicians are advised to use a GP gauge to cut the tip so as to appropriate the diameter from a smaller sized GP cone.
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.