Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31891969›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2019

Technical Quality of Root Canal Filling in Preclinical Training at Strasbourg University Using Two Teaching Protocols.

Naji Kharouf, Joseph Hemmerlé, Youssef Haikel, Davide Mancino

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Naji KharoufDepartment of Endodontic and Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Strasbourg University, Strasbourg, France.
Joseph HemmerléInserm UMR_S 1121, Biomaterials and Bioengineering, Strasbourg, France.
Youssef HaikelDepartment of Endodontic and Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Strasbourg University, Strasbourg, France.
Davide MancinoDepartment of Endodontic and Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Strasbourg University, Strasbourg, France.
Inserm · FRRegenerative NanoMedicine · FRUniversité de Strasbourg · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

PMID31891969
PMCPMC6938450
OpenAlexW2997469192

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.