ArticleClinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry2024
Comparative Analysis of Three Nickel-Titanium Rotary Files in Severely Curved L-Shaped Root Canals: Preparation Time, Aberrations, and Fracture Rates.
Article in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This simulated study of 30 severely curved L-shaped root canals aimed to compare preparation time, aberrations, width measurements, and fractured files of three nickel-titanium (Ni-Ti) files, namely, ProTaper, ProTaper Next (PTN), and WaveOne (WO). Methods: Thirty simulated L-curved root canals of resin blocks were randomly divided into three groups. The canals were prepared to a tip size of 25 using ProTaper, PTN, and WO rotary file systems. Pre- and post-operative views for each sample were captured by a professional camera at a standardized distance and position. Blue India ink was injected into the pre-operative canals, and red India ink was injected into the post-operative canals to give a clear superimposition image. Five points were assessed through the halfway of the canal to the orifice (area between the beginning of curvature and apical end point). Preparation time, aberrations, width measurements, and fractured files were recorded and analyzed. Results: Mean preparation time was longest in ProTaper (4.89±0.68 minutes). PTN and WO were the fastest in preparing the canals (about 3 minutes). A statistically significant difference was found between WO and ProTaper & PTN and ProTaper (p=0.000), while the difference was non-significant (p > 0.05) between WO and PTN. Nine aberrations consisting of three zips, one ledge and one outer widening were related to ProTaper, while WO recorded a ledge and fractured file, but for PTN system, it verified an outer widening and ledge. Only one WO file fractured, with no deformation observed in the other instruments. No significance was recorded among the width measurements in the different levels. Conclusion: ProTaper next achieved faster cutting than the ProTaper and WO file systems. PTN maintained the best apical termination position and produced the least canal aberration, followed by WO and ProTaper.
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.