ArticleCureus2024
Comparative Evaluation of the Removal of Gutta Percha From the Root Canal Using Various Retreatment File Systems With and Without Magnification: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. 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.
- Dentinal loss and cleaning efficiency of retreatment files with irrigation activation: AnJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Innovative Damage Assessment of Endodontic Instruments Based on Digital Image Stacking.Clinics and practice · 2024Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AIM AND
objectiveThe main goal was to compare the efficacy of gutta percha (GP) removal from the root canal using the Neo Endo Retreatment file system, Solite RS3, and ProTaper Universal Retreatment (PTUR) files with and without magnification under a direct operative microscope using stereomicroscopic evaluation. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty single-rooted teeth were randomly assigned to one of three groups after obturation till F2 mastercone with resin sealer: Group 1 (n=20): Neo Endo Retreatment Files, Group 2 (n=20): Solite RS3, Group 3 (n=20): PTUR files. Each group was further separated into two subgroups: Subgroup 1: without magnification (no direct operative microscope) and Subgroup 2: with magnification under a direct operative microscope at 12× magnification. After retreatment, the roots were grooved buccolingually and split into two halves using a diamond disc with the help of a chisel. The samples were examined under a stereomicroscope. Images were captured in a digital camera and analyzed using image analyzing software Image Pro v10 (Media Cybernetics).
resultsThe Neo Endo retreatment file system had a significantly greater percentage of remaining obturating material than the Solite RS3 Retreatment and PTUR file systems (p<0.05) in both groups with and without magnification. In the group without magnification, Solite RS3 showed a significant difference compared to ProTaper (p<0.05). In the group with magnification, there was no significant difference between the ProTaper Universal retreatment file system and Solite RS3 (p=0.589). Retreatment performed without magnification had more remnant GP when compared to the retreatment procedure performed under magnification of the direct operative microscope.
conclusionUnder stereomicroscopic evaluation, the remnant GP was higher in the Neo Endo File System both with and without magnification than in the Solite Retreatment and PTUR file systems. ProTaper showed moderate significance in removing the obturation than Solite RS3 in the magnification group. The Solite RS3 file system performed as efficiently as the PTUR file 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.