ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
Comparative Evaluation of Different Endodontic Access Cavity Designs with Different Burs-An
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 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, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pulp chamber debridement using various irrigant activation techniques in teeth with truss endodontic access - Using a newJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Materials and Methods: Six groups of 20 mandibular molars, totaling 120, were used in the investigation. While the other five groups underwent various access cavity preparations, chemomechanical preparation, and obturation procedures before being repaired with composite resin, Group 1 was left unaltered (the control). A 6 mm round head tip was used to apply the fracture force, which was measured in newtons, at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min until fracture developed. Results: According to the current study, the intact control group had the maximum fracture resistance. The access cavity groups' mean values were maximum in CariesAC followed by ConsAC, TrussAC, UltraAC, and TraditonalAC respectively. Conclusion: While among the four minimally invasive designs, CariesAC showed a higher fracture resistance despite the results being statistically insignificant, TradAC had a significantly lower resistance than other conservative access cavity designs.
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.