ArticleRestorative dentistry & endodontics2021
Article in Restorative dentistry & endodontics, 2021. 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, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of kinematic motion and instrumentation strategy on apical debris extrusion during root canal preparation: AnJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Bibliometric analysis of the GentleWave system: trends, collaborations, and research gaps.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2025Article
- A critical analysis of research methods and experimental models to study irrigants and irrigation systems.International endodontic journal · 2022Review
- The effect of various in-vitro and ex-vivo parameters on irrigant flow and apical pressure using manual syringe needle irrigation: Systematic review.The Saudi dental journal · 2022Review
- Outcomes of the GentleWave system on root canal treatment: a narrative review.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2022Review
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 2 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the apical pressure generated by 2 endodontic irrigation needles and the GentleWave system in mandibular molars. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe mesial and distal root canals of 12 mandibular molars were irrigated with a 30-gauge close-end needle or with a 30-gauge open-end needle. Procedures were performed in the mesial and distal canals. The GentleWave procedure and irrigation at 1 mm from the apex in the distal roots using an open-end needle were used, respectively, as negative and positive controls. The apical pressure was measured using a data acquisition pressure setup. Apical pressure exerted by the different needles in the 2 different canal types was statistically compared using 2-way analysis of variance.
resultsSignificant differences were found in the apical pressure for both needles and the canal type. The lowest values were obtained with close-end needles and in mesial canals. Negative apical pressure values were obtained using GentleWave.
conclusionsThe needle and the canal type influenced the apical pressure. The GentleWave procedure produced negative apical pressure.
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.