ArticleBMC oral health2022
Cone-beam computed tomography analysis of primary root canals transportation and dentin loss after instrumentation with two-pediatric rotary files.
Article in BMC oral health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05619796 (Assessment of Clinical and Radiographic Efficiency of Manual and Pediatric Rotary File Systems in Primary Root Canal Preparation), which is not on this 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.
Assessment of Clinical and Radiographic Efficiency of Manual and Pediatric Rotary File Systems in Primary Root Canal Preparation
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of clinical and radiographic efficiency of manual and pediatric rotary file systems in primary root canal preparation: a randomized controlled clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2023Trial
- Comparative evaluation of root dentin thickness following hand and rotary instrumentation of primary molar root canals using cone-beam computed tomography - an invitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Comparison of Hand Files, Mtwo, Reciproc, and Gentlefile Rotary Systems Regarding Canal Transportation, Centering Ability, and Obturation Quality of Primary Molars.Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran) · 2025Article
- Cone-beam computed tomography evaluation of shaping ability of kedo-S square and fanta AF™ baby rotary files compared to manual K-files in root canal preparation of primary anterior teeth.Clinical oral investigations · 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
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis in vitro study aims to compare rotary files (Fanta and Zuanba) with manual K files according to the amount of dentin removed and canal transportation in primary mandibular second molars by CBCT images.
methodsThis experimental study was conducted on 60 extracted human second primary molars. That were divided into three groups according to root canal preparation group "I" instrumented with manual K-files, group "II" instrumented with rotary Fanta files, and group "III" instrumented with rotary Zuanba files. After root canal preparation, teeth were scanned before and after mechanical preparation with CBCT scanner. Then the amount of dentin removed was determined at three levels, including the coronal, middle and apical levels. Data were statically analysed using the Kruskal-Wallis test.
resultNo statistically significant difference in the amount of dentin removed were noted between the manual and the rotary groups at the coronal and apical RC levels (P = 0.420) and (P = 0.819) respectively but significant difference was noted at the middle third (P = 0.043). Regarding RC transportation, no significant difference was noted among the three groups with the exception of the apical RC level (P = 0.043).
conclusionAlthough no significant differences were noted between rotary and manual files, the rotary files showed better performance.
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.