ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry : JCD
A comparative evaluation of remaining dentin thickness following biomechanical preparation of teeth using different rotary file systems: An
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry : JCD. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of contemporary nickel-titanium rotary systems on root canal dentin preservation: A cone-beam computed tomography-basedJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Article
- AnJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of remaining dentin thickness using single file, two file, and multiple rotary file system - An in vitro CBCT study.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2024Article
- AnJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of H-files and Pro-Taper universal systems in removing Gutta-percha during endodontic retreatment: A comparative study.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2024Article
- Article
- Comparative evaluation of cyclic fatigue resistance of thermomechanically treated NiTi rotary instruments in simulated curved canals with two different radii of curvature: AnJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2024Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Efficiency of Different Endodontic File Systems; Protaper Universal, MTWO, Protaper Next, Trunatomy, I-Race in Terms of Remaining Dentin Thickness: AnJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The aim of the study is to compare and evaluate the remaining dentin thickness following biomechanical preparation of teeth using different rotary file systems. Materials and Methodology: Sixty noncarious mandibular premolar teeth were collected and decoronated at the level of cementoenamel junction with a diamond disc. All specimens were randomly divided into 5 experimental groups - ProTaper Next (Dentsply Mallifer), Mtwo (VDW, Antaeus, Munich, Germany), RaCe (FKG, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland), Hyflex electro-discharge machining (EDM) (Coltene-Whaledent, Allstetten, Switzerland), NeoNiTi (Neolix, France) and 1 control group of 10 teeth each. After mounting the samples on a modeling wax sheet, preoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were taken. Biomechanical preparation of canals was done following the assigned protocol of manufacturers. Postoperative CBCT scans were taken and comparison was carried out with preoperative scans. Statistical Analysis Used: Difference among the groups was analyzed by Results: A comparison of preinstrumentation and postinstrumentation CBCT images revealed ProTaper Next group to remove more dentin at 7 mm as opposed to other groups in mesiodistal direction. However, no statistical difference was evident between ProTaper Next, MTwo, Race, Hyflex EDM, NeoNiTi file systems at 3 mm, 5 mm, and 7 mm in buccolingual direction. A statistically nonsignificant difference was evident between MTwo, Race, Hyflex EDM, NeoNiTi file systems at 3 mm, 5 mm, and 7 mm in both mesiodistal and buccolingual direction. Conclusion: Race file system performed better and removed lesser dentin in both buccolingual and mesiodistal directions. More dentin was removed at the coronal in mesiodistal direction with the use of ProTaper Next, and significant difference was seen between Protaper Next group and other groups in the study.
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.