Trial reportBrazilian dental journal
Trial report in Brazilian dental journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Postoperative pain after endodontic treatment with glycolic acid as final irrigant using reciprocating and rotary instrumentation in a noninferiority trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Effect of intracanal cryotherapy on post-operative pain in single-visit endodontic retreatment: a randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2024Trial
- Single-Visit Endodontics Under Dental Operating Microscopy: A Retrospective Observational Study.Cureus · 2026Article
- Surface integrity assessment of endodontic instruments after repeated use: A microscopic analysis.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Article
- The Effect of Number of Visits, Use of Solvent and Gutta-percha Removal Technique on Postoperative Pain following Nonsurgical Endodontic Retreatment; A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.Iranian endodontic journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present randomized clinical trial compared the prevalence and intensity of postoperative pain in cases of endodontic reintervention using manual or engine-driven reciprocating instruments. As secondary objectives, the analgesic intake and time required for the root canal filling removal and re-instrumentation were also evaluated. Forty-eight individuals with an endodontically treated single-rooted tooth diagnosed with asymptomatic apical periodontitis were included in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to two comparison groups (n=24/group): reintervention with stainless steel manual instruments or a nickel-titanium reciprocating system (Reciproc; VDW, Munich, Germany). The endodontic reintervention was performed in two sessions with a calcium hydroxide-based intracanal medication applied for 14 days before root canal obturation. Working time for the root canal filling removal and re-instrumentation was recorded with a digital stopwatch. After each visit, postoperative pain intensity was assessed at 12, 24, and 48 hours and seven days using the Numerical Rating Scale (NRS). The patients were also asked about analgesic intake. Data were analyzed using Pearson chi-square, T and Mann-Whitney U tests (α=0.05). No significant differences between groups were found regarding the prevalence and intensity of pain or the need for analgesic intake at any time point (P > 0.05). Working time was significantly shorter in the reciprocating group (18 versus 41 minutes). In conclusion, manual and reciprocating instruments achieved the same results in terms of prevalence and intensity of postoperative pain and analgesic intake. However, filling material removal and re-instrumentation of the root canals were more than twice as fast when using the reciprocating system.
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.