ArticleBMC oral health2023
Evaluation of shaping ability of different glide path instruments: a micro-computed tomography study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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.
- A Comparative Analysis of ProTaper Ultimate and Five Multifile Systems: Design, Metallurgy, and Mechanical Performance.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Glide Path in Endodontics: A Literature Review of Current Knowledge.Dentistry journal · 2024Review
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
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the shaping ability of different instruments, TruNatomy Glider (TRN-G), WaveOne Gold Glider (WOG-G), and ProGlider (Pro-G) using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT).
methodsThe mesial canals of 27 mandibular molars with two separate mesial canals and moderate curvature were included in this study [n = 27 mesiobuccal (MB) and mesiolingual (ML) root canal]. According to the manufacturer's instructions, the glide path was created with TRN-G, WOG-G, and Pro-G glide path instruments (n = 9 MB and ML root canal in each group). Micro-CT scanning was performed before and after preparation. Mesiodistal (MD) and buccolingual (BL) transportation and the centering ratio were measured at three levels within the canal (3, 5 and 7 mm). A three-way robust ANOVA was used to compare the parameters.
resultsTRN-G showed significantly greater transportation in the MD direction than the other instruments throughout the root canal (overall root canal) (p < 0.05). The best centering ability in the BL direction was shown by the WOG-G, regardless of level within the canal and canal distinction (MB vs. ML) (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between groups according to the level within the canal and canal parameters (p > 0.05). Whether the root canal was MB or ML did not affect centering or transportation (p > 0.05).
conclusionsGlide path instruments can be used to shape moderately curved canals with minimal apical transportation and better centering ability. All three tested glide path files can used safely before the shaping file.
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.