ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2022
Buckling Susceptibility of a K-File during the Initial Negotiations of Narrow and Curved Canals Using Different Manual Techniques.
Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Comparative Buckling Strength and Metallurgical Analysis of Five Classic NiTi Endodontic Rotary Files.European endodontic journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
(1) Background: One possible way to investigate the potential impact or susceptibility of buckling on different manual techniques is to measure compressive loads during canal negotiation. The higher their values, the easier and quicker the critical load level to buckling is reached, leading to possible instrument lateral deformation. The objective of the present study was to investigate the impacts of compressive loads on a small K-file manipulated with different techniques for canal negotiation in simulated narrow and curved canals. (2) Methods: The tooth model selected was a plastic double-curved premolar 23 mm long (DRSK Group AB, Kasernvagen 2, SE-281 35, Hassleholm, Sweden) with an extremely narrow canal lumen to mimic a very difficult anatomical scenario. An experienced endodontist performed the negotiation of 90 of these artificial teeth randomly assigned to 3 different groups of 30 blocks each, respectively, using 3 different techniques: Group A: watch winding/pull (WW) motion; Group B: balanced forces (BF) technique; Group C: envelope of motion (EOM). The measurement system was based on the use of a dynamometer, Instron, Ltd. (model 2525-818 2kN f.s.), linked to a data acquisition unit HBM MGC+ to test all the compression and tensile loads, including all the peaks. (3) Results: All data acquired were processed by the CATMAN AP HBM software. Multiple comparisons for the highest compressive loads estimated the mean difference between WW vs. BF techniques of 3.60 [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.85 to 4.35, p < 0.001], WW vs. EOM of −1.76 (95% CI: −2.11 to 1.40, p < 0.001), and BF vs. EOM −5.36 (95% CI: −6.04 to −4.67, p < 0.001). (4) Conclusions: In conclusion, among the tested manual motions, the BF technique (Group B) was the most susceptible to buckling with the highest compressive load. WW motion (Group A) and EOM (Group C) were less susceptible to buckling than the BF technique. Therefore, a pressure-free manipulation of manual files, such as WW motion or EOM, can help reduce the susceptibility to buckling during the negotiation of narrow-curved canals.
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.