ArticleCureus2024
Optimizing Root Canal Therapy: An In Vitro Comparative Study of Innovative File Systems on Mandibular Premolar Fracture Resistance.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
INTRODUCTION AND
aimRoot canal therapy is a vital procedure for saving teeth by removing infection and cleaning the complex root canal system. However, a delicate balance exists between thorough cleaning and preserving tooth strength. The study aims to evaluate the instrumentation effect of three innovative file systems, XP-endo® shaper, Reciproc®, and Self-adjusting file (SAF) on fracture resistance of mandibular premolars. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty single-rooted mandibular premolars were collected; a standard access cavity was prepared and the working length was established 1 mm short of the apex. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups(n=10). In Group 1, the shaping of the specimens was achieved using XP-endo® shaper; in Group 2, it was instrumented using Reciproc® file; and in Group 3, it was instrumented using SAF. All samples were decoronated and the roots were mounted vertically in acrylic resin and subjected to fracture resistance under a universal testing machine.
resultsIntergroup analysis was done by one-way ANOVA followed by Bonferroni post hoc test, which did not report a statistically significant difference (p>0.05).
conclusionAll three tested file systems were similar in fracture resistance. XP-endo® shaper exhibited better fracture resistance on root canal instrumentation when compared to Reciproc® and SAF although they are not statistically significant.
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.