ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2019
Technical Quality of Root Canal Filling in Preclinical Training at Strasbourg University Using Two Teaching Protocols.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- CBCT based three dimensional odontometric mapping of maxillary anterior teeth in an Indian cohort to guide precision endodontic access cavity preparation.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- The Assessment of Quality of the Root Canal Filling and the Number of Visits Needed for Completing Primary Root Canal Treatment by Operators with Different Experience.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Application of WeChat-based flipped classroom on root canal filling teaching in a preclinical endodontic course.BMC medical education · 2022Article
- Effectiveness of Three Agents in Pulpotomy Treatment of Permanent Molars with Incomplete Root Development: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Porosity Distribution in Single Cone Root Canal Fillings Performed by Operators with Different Clinical Experience: A microCT Assessment.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Microcomputed Tomographic Assessment of the Single Cone Root Canal Fillings Performed by Undergraduate Student, Postgraduate Student and Specialist Endodontist.Journal of clinical medicine · 2021Article
- Physicochemical and Antibacterial Properties of Novel, Premixed Calcium Silicate-Based Sealer Compared to Powder-Liquid Bioceramic Sealer.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Outcome of Root Canal Treatments Using a New Calcium Silicate Root Canal Sealer: A Non-Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of clinical medicine · 2020Article
- Comparative analysis between resin-based root canal sealer and recent bioceramic-based root canal sealers using MicroCT, film thickness, and solubility.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to compare two teaching protocols according to the technical quality of root canal therapy (RCT) and the procedural errors occurred in preclinical training. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo different groups of students were concerned. The first one (G1) performed a crown-down technique to shape the root canal systems and cold lateral condensation technique to fill them. The second one (G2) performed a step-down technique without initial manual scouting to shape the root canal systems, and cold hydraulic condensation technique, to fill them. G2 used clinical operative microscope to check the access cavity preparation. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The quality of RCTs and procedural errors were recorded and analyzed using chi-squared test and
resultsFour hundred sixty-eight root canals from 152 maxillary molars were treated by the G1 students: 46.6% canals were judged as acceptable. Four hundred sixty-nine root canals from 152 mandibular molars were treated by G1: 58.8% canals were judged as acceptable. Five hundred fifteen root canals from 156 maxillary molars were treated by G2 students: 84.1% canals were judged as acceptable. Four hundred ninety-three root canals from 156 mandibular molars were treated by G2: 90.9% canals were judged as acceptable. Among the errors, the incidence of "ledges" and "fractured instruments" was statistically significant in G1 compared with G2, both on maxillary and on mandibular molars.
conclusionsThe molar RCTs performed by G2, who got benefit from the new teaching protocol, resulted in a better quality of root filling and in fewer procedural errors compared with the molar RCTs performed by G1.
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.