ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2023
Diameter and taper variability of gutta-percha cones adapted to TruNatomyTM and RotateTM rotary file systems.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Dimensional and cross-sectional compatibility of contemporary nickel-titanium files and their corresponding gutta-percha cones: A micro-computed tomography study.The Saudi dental journal · 2026Article
- Impact of cone system compatibility on single cone bioceramic obturation in canals prepared with variable taper NiTi rotary files.Scientific reports · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Evaluate the discrepancy in diameter and taper between adapted gutta-percha cones for TruNatomyTM 26.04 (TRU04), RotateTM 25.04 (ROT04) and 25.06 (ROT06) systems and their reference files. Material and Methods: A sample of 60 gutta-percha cones and 15 rotary files was selected and divided into three groups (TRU04, ROT04, ROT06). Each group consisted of 20 cones and 5 corresponding files. They were observed under an optical microscope at x20 magnification and images of all observations were obtained. Diameters were measured with a digital ruler calibrated at 3 levels: D1, D3, D16 (mm from tip). The taper of each system of cones and files was calculated, The percentage of discrepancy between the taper of each file system and its corresponding gutta-percha cone was calculated. Results: The percentage of discrepancy between the diameter of the tested gutta-percha cones and their corresponding files varied from -7% to 21%. The smallest dimensional discrepancy between gutta-percha cone and corresponding file was found at D16 in TRU04 group. The tapers of the gutta-percha cones vs their respective files were: 2% vs 3% (TRU04), 4% vs 5% (ROT04), and 6% vs 5% (ROT06). The highest discrepancy was observed at D16 in ROT06 group. The global taper discrepancy between gutta-percha cone and its corresponding file was negative in TRU04 and ROT04 groups. Conclusions: The taper and the diameter at D1, D3, and D16 differed between all of the tested gutta-percha cones and their corresponding files. TruNatomy 26.04 files and its adapted gutta-percha cones exhibited the least discrepancy.
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.