ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2020
Comparison of Canal Transportation and Centering Ability of ProGlider and WaveOne Gold Glider in Curved Canals.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Evaluation of Centering Ability and Canal Transportation Using Manual and Rotary Instruments - AnJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025Article
- Evaluation of shaping ability of different glide path instruments: a micro-computed tomography study.BMC oral health · 2023Article
- Effect of Additional Apical Preparation on Retreatment of Curved Root Canals Filled with Different Sealers.European journal of dentistry · 2023Article
- Cone-beam computed tomography analysis of primary root canals transportation and dentin loss after instrumentation with two-pediatric rotary files.BMC oral health · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the volume variation and maintenance of the root canal position when using the ProGlider 16.02 (PG) and the WaveOne Gold Glider 15.02 (WOGG) file systems for glide path preparation. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-four moderately curved mesiobuccal canals of maxil-lary first molars were selected and randomly divided into two groups: PG and WOGG. The selected teeth were scanned using microtomography before and after root canal preparation to assess centralization and linear transport at 1, 3, 5, and 7 mm from the apical foramen. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The data were analyzed with the Mann-Whitney U test. The level of significance was 5%.
resultsThere were no significant differences in volume variation or root canal transport (
conclusionsWOGG and PG instruments presented similar results regarding the root canal volume increase and transport. WOGG caused higher decentralization at 3 mm from the apical foramen.
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.