ArticleJournal of dental sciences2022
Shaping ability of rotary and reciprocating single-file systems in combination with and without different glide path techniques in simulated curved canals.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating success rates of rotary NiTi versus reciprocating files in endodontic treatment.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of the cyclic fatigue resistance of four Ni-Ti instruments in simulated root canal curvatures using CAD/CAM technology.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Effect of sterilization on the cutting efficiency of two different rotary NiTi instruments (An In- vitro Study).BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of the remaining dentin volume following instrumentation with rotary, reciprocating, and hand files during root canal treatment in primary molars: AnJournal of dental sciences · 2024Article
- Glide Path in Endodontics: A Literature Review of Current Knowledge.Dentistry journal · 2024Review
- Comparative Analysis of Three Nickel-Titanium Rotary Files in Severely Curved L-Shaped Root Canals: Preparation Time, Aberrations, and Fracture Rates.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2024Article
- Impact of cooling on shaping ability of thermally treated files in canal models with double curvature.PeerJ · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: Glide path management (GPM) is a consequential clinical step that serves to influence predictably successful root canal therapy. However, the effect of GPM on the shaping ability of single-file system remains controversial. This study compared the performance of rotary single-file One Curve (OC) and reciprocating single-file Reciproc Blue (RCB) in combination with/without different glide path techniques: no glide path preparation (NG), PathFile (PF), ProGlider (PG) and WaveOne Gold Glider (WOGG), respectively. Materials and methods: 80 simulated curved canals (n = 10 canals/per group) were instrumented to an apical size of 0.25 mm using OC and RCB in combination with/without different glide path techniques, respectively. The amount of resin removal, canal transportation, and the degree of canal straightening were measured in Photoshop CS6 software. Statistical analysis of the data was performed by using Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by Dunn's post hoc test with Bonferroni correction ( Results: Post-glide path analysis found that WOGG and PG produced less canal transportation and curvature straightening than PF ( Conclusion: PG and WOGG can improve the shaping ability of OC and RCB instrument. OC, especially when combined with PG and WOGG, has a less aggressive dentin cutting and more centered preparation than the RCB instrument.
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.