ArticleBMC oral health2022
Efficiency of reciprocating systems reciprocated at different angles in removing root-canals fillings with an MTA-type sealer: an Ex-vivo study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundThere have been no reports on the impact of different reciprocating angles on retreatment performance of reciprocating files. This ex-vivo study compared the efficiency of three reciprocating systems in removing MTA-type sealer-based filling materials and investigated the influence of different reciprocating angles on their retreatment ability.
methods140 root-canals were instrumented to a 35 apical size and filled with an MTA-type sealer and gutta-percha cones. Samples were scanned by micro-computed-tomography and the root-canals fillings volumes were measured. Samples were divided into 7 groups according to the reciprocating angles at which the WaveOne-Gold (WOG), Reciproc-Blue (RB) and R-Motion (RM) systems were reciprocated to remove the root-canals' fillings. The WOG-150/30, WOG-90/30, RB-150/30, RB-90/30, RM-150/30 and RM-90/30 groups in which the systems were reciprocated at 150/30 and 90/30 (counterclockwise/clockwise) angles. In the RB-270/30 group the RB system was reciprocated at 270/30 angles. Samples were re-scanned and the remaining filling materials' (RFMs) volumes were measured. The percentage of the RFMs volume and its mean value for each group were calculated and data were statistically analysed at 0.05 significance level.
resultsThe WOG system resulted in less RFMs (2.24%) when reciprocated at 90/30 angles compared to that resulted from the 150/30 angles (4.96%) [P = 0.002]. The RB system reciprocated at 90/30 angles resulted in less RFMs (2.67%) compared to that resulted from the 270/30 angles (6.64%) [P = 0.001]. The RFMs after using RM system reciprocated at 90/30 (6.02%) and 150/30 (7.61%) were greater than those of WOG (2.24 and 4.96%) and RB (2.67 and 4.34%) reciprocated at the same angles (P < 0.05). The longest time required to remove the filling materials was recorded with the RB-270/30 group (6.06 min) [P = 0.00]. The times required when the WOG, RB and RM files reciprocated at 90/30 angles (3.59, 3 and 3.05 mins, respectively) were shorter than those when files were reciprocated at 150/30 angles (5.25, 4.98 and 3.67 min, respectively) [P < 0.05].
conclusionsThe WOG and RB systems removed more MTA-type sealer-based root-canals fillings than the RM system. Lower counterclockwise reciprocating angles improve the retreatment ability of reciprocating systems, especially the WOG system and can reduce the time required for retreatment procedures.
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.