ArticleCureus2023
Comparative Evaluation of Dentinal Defects After Root Canal Preparation Using Various Nickel Titanium Files: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Article
- Article
- The Effect of Different File Motions on the Formation of Apical Debris During Root Canal Preparation.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025Article
- Effect of Different Glide Path Establishing Systems on Apically Extruded Debris in Curved Root Canals: AnJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- Investigating the Effects of Various Root Canal Irrigation Solutions on Tissue Dissolution and Microbial Control.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- Assessment of Patient Satisfaction and Oral Health-Related Quality of Life Following Full Mouth Rehabilitation with Implant-Supported Prostheses.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- Clinical Evaluation of the Long-Term Survival and Success Rates of Different Types of Implant-Supported Prostheses.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- Exploring the Impact of Orthodontic Treatment on Temporomandibular Joint Health.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- Assessment of Long-Term Success and Survival Rates of Different Types of Intracanal Medicaments.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- Exploring the use of Virtual Surgical Planning (VSP) in Maxillofacial Reconstructions.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 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
7 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study set out to compare the damage done to dentin by three distinct titanium file brands - the Hyflex EDM, the ProTaper Next, and the Waveone Gold Nickel - in order to draw conclusions about which one is the most effective. MATERIALS AND
methodsForty-first premolars in the mandible with straight canals and single roots were instrumented using Hyflex EDM, Waveone Gold, and Protaper Next. Dentinal flaws after endodontic treatment were studied by sectioning specimens using a hard tissue microtome and analyzing them under a stereomicroscope.
resultsThere was no discernible variation between the groups in the coronal third (p=0.312) or apical third (p=0.076). Hyflex EDM and Protaper Next differed significantly in the middle portion of the tape (p=0.016). The Hyflex EDM sample had the fewest cracks. There was no statistically significant difference between Hyflex EDM and Waveone Gold; however, Hyflex EDM had fewer fractures in the middle third of the sample than Waveone Gold did.
conclusionElectric discharge machining (EDM) files made from Hyflex proved to be far superior to their Protaper Next and Waveone Gold counterparts as they induced the fewest cracks in the middle third of the root dentin.
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.