ArticleCureus2022
Comparison of Cleaning Efficiency of Root Canal Using Different Rotary NiTi Instrumentation System: A Scanning Electron Microscopic Study.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Efficacy of Etidronic Acid for Smear Layer Removal: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Evaluation by Scanning Electron Microscopy and Energy Dispersive X-Ray Spectroscopy of the Effects of Root Canal Instrumentation on the Radicular Dentine.Microscopy research and technique · 2025Article
- A Comparative Study of Temperature Variations in Incisor Root Surfaces During Root Canal Preparation Using Various Rotary Systems and Irrigation Protocols.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Comparative evaluation of cleaning efficiency of single file NiTi rotary system during root canal treatment procedure - A scanning electron microscope study.Journal of conservative dentistry : JCDArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo ensure that endodontic treatment is as effective as possible, it is important to remove any smear layer that forms as part of the instrumentation procedure. This layer might reduce the overall effectiveness of endodontic therapy. AIM OF THE STUDY: For this research, two distinct types of rotary NiTi files were compared: WaveOne Gold (WOG) (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and F360 (Komet Brasseler GmbH & Co., Lemgo, Germany) for its capacity to eliminate trash and the smear layer. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwo groups (n=20 each) of 40 mandibular second premolar teeth were employed in this investigation, with each group receiving a random allocation of teeth. The F360 system and the WaveOne Gold system are two sets of instruments. The samples were irrigated with a mixture of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) (5.25%) and citric acid (40%). Finally, all samples in the centre of the coronal, middle, and apical thirds were examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Mann-Whitney U tests were used to analyse the data.
resultsF360 instrument showed a statistically significant difference for smear layer removal among all thirds of the root canal whereas WOG resulted in a significant difference when the apical third was compared to the middle and coronal third. Significant differences were found in the middle and apical third in terms of smear layer removal between the two groups. Both F360 and WOG instruments showed statistically significant differences for debris removal among all thirds of the root canal. No significant differences were found in the coronal, middle, and apical third in terms of debris removal between the two groups.
conclusionWOG resulted in cleaner canals compared to the F360 file system at coronal, middle, and apical third.
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.