Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35692221›Full record

ArticleRestorative dentistry & endodontics2022

Effectiveness and safety of rotary and reciprocating kinematics for retreatment of curved root canals: a systematic review of

Lucas Pinho Simões, Alexandre Henrique Dos Reis-Prado, Carlos Roberto Emerenciano Bueno, Ana Cecília Diniz Viana, Marco Antônio Húngaro Duarte, Luciano Tavares Angelo Cintra, Cleidiel Aparecido Araújo Lemos, Francine Benetti

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Restorative dentistry & endodontics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Selective Nonsurgical Endodontic Retreatment: Relevant Aspects for Clinical Application-A Scoping Review.Australian endodontic journal : the journal of the Australian Society of Endodontology Inc · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Lucas Pinho SimõesDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), School of Dentistry, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6954-487X
Alexandre Henrique Dos Reis-PradoDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), School of Dentistry, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5866-7137
Carlos Roberto Emerenciano BuenoDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, São Paulo State University (Unesp), School of Dentistry, Araçatuba, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1897-2823
Ana Cecília Diniz VianaDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), School of Dentistry, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5987-0540
Marco Antônio Húngaro DuarteDepartment of Dentistry, Endodontics and Dental Materials, University of São Paulo (USP), School of Dentistry, Bauru, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3051-737X
Luciano Tavares Angelo CintraDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, São Paulo State University (Unesp), School of Dentistry, Araçatuba, SP, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2348-7846
Cleidiel Aparecido Araújo LemosDepartment of Dentistry, Federal University of Juiz de Fora, Campus GV (UFJF-GV), School of Dentistry, Governador Valadares, MG, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8273-489X
Francine BenettiDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais (UFMG), School of Dentistry, Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5459-353X
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais · BRUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) · BRUniversidade de São Paulo · BRUniversidade Federal de Juiz de Fora · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objectives: This systematic review (register-osf.io/wg7ba) compared the efficacy and safety of rotary and reciprocating kinematics in the removal of filling material from curved root canals. Materials and Methods: Only Results: The search resulted in 2,795 studies, of which 15 were included. Efficacy was measured in terms of the remaining filling material and the time required for this. Nine studies evaluated filling material removal, of which 7 found no significant differences between rotary and reciprocating kinematics. Regarding the time for filling removal, 5 studies showed no difference between both kinematics, 2 studies showed faster results with rotary systems, and other 2 showed the opposite. No significant differences were found in apical transportation, centering ability, instrument failure, dentin removed and extruded debris. A low risk of bias was observed. Conclusions: This review suggests that the choice of rotary or reciprocating kinematics does not influence the efficacy of filling removal from curved root canals. Further studies are needed to compare the kinematics safety in curved root canals.

Indexed as

Curved root canalsNickel-titanium instrumentsReciprocatingRetreatmentRotary kinematics

Identifiers

PMID35692221
PMCPMC9160764
OpenAlexW4226157423

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.