ArticleBiomedicines2020
Evaluation of Root-End Preparation with Two Different Endodontic Microsurgery Ultrasonic Tips.
Article in Biomedicines, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Impact of Periodontal Attachment Loss on the Outcome of Endodontic Microsurgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2021Pooled it
- The effect of retrograde material type and surgical techniques on the success rate of surgical endodontic retreatment: systematic review of prospective randomized clinical trials.BMC oral health · 2021Pooled it
- Trial
- Influence of apical root resection level and filling technique on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth: a biomechanical study.Odontology · 2026Article
- Ultrasonic Cavity Preparation with CVD Diamond Tips: A Scanning Electron Microscopy Study of Dentin Surface Morphology and Smear Layer Formation.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- In vitro evaluation of the effects of different bone grafts on the surface microhardness of NeoPUTTY and MTA Angelus.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Microcracks after apicoectomy with three surgical instruments: A comparative scanning electron microscopy study.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025Article
- Metronidazole-laden silk fibroin methacrylated scaffolds for managing periapical lesions.Odontology · 2025Article
- Guided Endodontics: Static vs. Dynamic Computer-Aided Techniques-A Literature Review.Journal of personalized medicine · 2022Review
- Intentional Replantation as a Starting Approach for a Multidisciplinary Treatment of a Mandibular Second Molar: A Case Report.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Article
- Models for Oral Biology Research.Biomedicines · 2022Article
- Anatomical Analysis of Mandibular Posterior Teeth using CBCT: An Endo-Surgical Perspective.European endodontic journal · 2021Article
- Plasma Rich in Growth Factors in the Treatment of Endodontic Periapical Lesions in Adult Patients: A Narrative Review.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Quercetin as an Auxiliary Endodontic Irrigant for Root Canal Treatment: Anti-Biofilm and Dentin Collagen-Stabilizing Effects In Vitro.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Article
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
The aim of this study is to compare root-end preparation performed with two different ultrasonic tips-CVDentus and NSK-and respective time requirements. After root-end resection, 32 teeth were randomly divided in two groups, according to the ultrasonic tip used for root-end preparation. Preparation time was recorded. Photomicrographs were taken to assess the following parameters: root surface microcracking, marginal integrity and presence of debris. One ultrasonic tip from each group was analyzed through scanning electron microscopy before and after root-end preparation. The significance level was set at α = 0.05. Incidence of microcracks in both groups was 12.5%. Solely intracanal microcracking was found, consistently positioned within the widest side of the remaining dentine. No statistically significant differences were verified between both experimental groups regarding marginal integrity (
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.