ArticleEuropean endodontic journal2024
Shaping Ability of Different Rotary and Reciprocating File Systems in Simulated S-Shaped Root Canals.
Article in European endodontic journal, 2024. 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.
- Exploration of uninstrumented areas and volumetric precision of ProTaper Ultimate versus ProTaper Next file systems: A micro-computed tomography study.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025Article
- Management of Radix Entomolaris of Mandibular First Molar With Complex Root Canal Curvatures: A Case Report and Mini Review.Clinical case reports · 2025Article
- Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to examine the shaping ability of six rotary and reciprocating file systems, as well as hybrid techniques in simulated S-shaped root canals.
methodsA hundred and twenty S-shaped radiopaque thermosetting epoxy resin blocks were grouped according to the system used for biomechanical preparation. Six groups of 15 canals each were prepared using TruNatomy, Procodile, VDW Rotate, Hyflex CM, OneCurve, and WaveOne Gold, respectively. Two additional hybrid (Procodile/Hyflex CM and Procodile/TruNatomy) groups (n=15 each) were added after evaluating the results of individual systems. All canals were enlarged to 0.25 mm apically. Canal transportation, centering ability, diameter increase, and iatrogenic errors were assessed by superimposed pre-operative and post-operative images. AutoCAD was used for data analysis. All groups were statistically compared with analysis of variance and Tukey honest significant difference test (p<0.05).
resultsHyflex CM resulted in the most conservative diameter increase in all thirds (coronal, middle, and apical; p<0.001). Procodile showed the best (p<0.001) centering ability in the coronal and middle thirds, while TruNatomy resulted in the least canal transportation and most centering preparation in the apical third (p<0.001). Hybridisation of Procodile and Hyflex CM produced the least canal transportation and best centering ability in the middle third (p<0.001). No instrument breakage occurred, and no ledge, elbow, or apical zip formation was observed during canal preparation.
conclusionHybridisation of Procodile and Hyflex CM showed remarkable results in preserving the canal diameter in all thirds and resulted in the least canal transportation and best centering ability in the middle third of the canal. However, when treatment cost and duration limit the clinical applicability of the hybrid technique, clinicians can use a single file system (Hyflex CM or TruNatomy) since it shows satisfactory results in all parameters when compared with a hybrid system.
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.