Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36713274›Full record

ArticleActa stomatologica Croatica2022

Efficacy of Reciprocating Instruments in Retreatment of Bioactive and Resin-Based Root Canal Sealers.

Danijela Jurić Kaćunić, Antonija Tadin, Petra Dijanić, Adriana Katunarić, Jurica Matijević, Milena Trutina-Gavran, Nada Galić

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta stomatologica Croatica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.8field-weighted citation impact, top 28% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Danijela Jurić KaćunićPrivate dental clinic, Gaggenau, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2929-0905
Antonija TadinDepartment of Restorative Dental Medicine and Endodontics, Study of Dental Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Split, Split, Croatia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5365-9816
Petra DijanićPrivate dental clinic, Zagreb, Croatia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7871-0788
Adriana KatunarićDepartment of Endodontics and Restorative Dental Medicine, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2201-9605
Jurica MatijevićDepartment of Endodontics and Restorative Dental Medicine, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9519-524X
Milena Trutina-GavranDepartment of Morphology and Anthropology, Study of Dental Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Mostar, Mostar, Bosnia and Herzegovina.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5235-5215
Nada GalićDepartment of Endodontics and Restorative Dental Medicine, School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5579-4245
University of Zagreb · HRSolomon R. Guggenheim Museum · USUniversity of Mostar · BAUniversity of Split · HR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: To compare the effectiveness of reciprocating instruments in removing gutta-percha and bioactive-based (BioRoot RCS and MTA Fillapex) and epoxy resin-based (AH Plus) sealers from root canals based on filling residues and the time required for root canal revision. Material and methods: Root canals of 90 teeth were instrumented with Reciproc R40. All root canals were obturated using the single-cone technique with Reciproc R40 gutta-percha and with one of the selected sealers. Samples with oval, straight canals were used and randomly divided into three groups: (i) filled with AH Plus sealer and gutta-percha (n=30); (ii) filled with MTA Fillapex and gutta-percha (n=30); (iii) filled with BioRoot RCS and gutta-percha (n=30). Each group was divided into two subgroups (n=15) according to the retreatment instrument used (Reciproc M-Wire R25/R40 or Reciproc blue RB25/RB40). Root canals were longitudinally split and analyzed with a stereomicroscope at 15 × magnifications in the coronal, middle, and apical third. Computational analyses were performed with the Image J software. Data were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test. Results: While no statistically significant differences in the residual material surface were found for Reciproc Blue, Reciproc M-Wire showed significantly higher residual material surface for AH Plus and MTA Fillapex compared to BioRoot RCS. For AH plus. Residual material surface was significantly lower for Reciproc Blue than for Reciproc M-Wire. In contrast, BioRoot RCS showed a significantly higher residual material surface for Reciproc Blue. Conclusions: Calcium silicate-containing sealers were more retrievable compared to AH Plus, with fewer sealer remnants and shorter retreatment time. Retreatment with Reciproc M-Wire instruments was superior to Reciproc blue instruments in retreatment of BioRoot RCS. However, none of the sealers were removed completely.

Indexed as

Author Keywords: ReciprocEpoxy SealerHydraulic SealerMeSH Terms: Dental InstrumentsRetreatmentRoot Canal PreparationStereomicroscope

Identifiers

PMID36713274
PMCPMC9873006
OpenAlexW4313416793

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.