ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2022
Comparative Assessment of the Shaping Ability of Reciproc Blue, WaveOne Gold, and ProTaper Gold in Simulated Root Canals.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. 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.
- A comparative analysis of the shaping ability of four different endodontic files: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Comparative Analysis of Rotary Systems in Curved Root Canals: Evaluation of Wear, Transportation, and Centering Capacity.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Shaping ability of WaveOne Gold, hyflexEDM, trunatomy NiTi files: a micro-CT study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Formation of dentinal microcracks after root canal preparation with four kinds of mechanical nickel-titanium files.Hua xi kou qiang yi xue za zhi = Huaxi kouqiang yixue zazhi = West China journal of stomatology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Maintaining the original trajectory of the root canal is a major challenge in endodontic therapy, especially in narrow and curved root canals. The present study aims to assess the shaping capacity of three endodontic systems made of different nickel−titanium alloys on simulated curved root canals. Thirty-six endodontic resin blocks (Ref. V040245, VDW) divided into three groups, each of twelve blocks (n = 12), were shaped, photographed, and analyzed: Group 1-Protaper Gold (PTG) (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) F2 25/08; Group 2-Reciproc Blue (RB), RB 25/08 (VDW, Munich, Germany); Group 3-WaveOne Gold (WOG) (Dentsply Maillefer), WOG 25/07. Each block was standardized and photographed before and after shaping in the same position, with the foramen oriented to the left. Post-shaping images were superimposed onto the initial ones. Thirteen measurement points were used for evaluation, spaced with 1 mm distance from one another, from level 0, apical foramen, to level 12, coronal orifice. The amount of removed resin from inner (X1) and outer (X2) walls, the direction of transportation (X1 − X2), and the centering ability (X1 − X2)/Y were measured, calculated, and comparatively analyzed. Statistical differences (p < 0.05) were observed between the shaping capacity of the considered systems in the middle and coronal thirds. PTG had a better centering ability than WOG and RB in the coronal third, while RB was more centered in the middle third in comparison to both WOG and PTG. In the apical third, the centering capacity of WOG was higher, without being statistically significant. WOG 25/07 and PTG 25/08 tend to cut more on the inner wall of the root canals, and RB 25/08 on the external one.
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.