ArticleIranian endodontic journal2019
Diagnostic Value of Cone-Beam Computed Tomography and Digital Periapical Radiography in Detection of Separated Instruments.
Article in Iranian endodontic journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Expert consensus on management of instrument separation in root canal therapy.International journal of oral science · 2025Review
- Procedural errors detected by cone beam tomography in cases with indication for retreatment:Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2024Article
- In Vitro Comparative Accuracy of PSP Digital Radiography and CBCT for Detection of Broken Nickel-titanium Files in Endodontically Treated Root Canals.Galen medical journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: File Fracture is one of the most common problems during root canal treatment which can affect treatment procedure and prognosis, so it is important to diagnose and prevent it. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the diagnostic value of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and digital periapical radiography for detection of separated instrument retained inside the canal. Methods and Materials: Ninety single-rooted extracted human teeth were selected and randomly divided into 3 groups ( Results: Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of digital periapical radiography in detection of a fractured file #10 in the canal was 96.7% and 63.3%, 76.7%, 73.1%, 67.6%, 70%, for CBCT, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of digital periapical radiography in detection of a fracture file #35 in the canal was 93.3%, 96.7%, 96.6%, 93.5% and 95%, and 36.7%, 76.7%, 61.1%, 54.8%, 56.66%, for CBCT, respectively. Conclusion: Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value and diagnostic accuracy of digital periapical radiography was better than the CBCT technique in both sizes of broken files.
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.