ArticleIranian endodontic journal2024
Comparing the Efficiency of Single versus Dual Ultrasonic Devices for Metallic Post Removal in Endodontic Retreatment: A Clinical Study.
Article in Iranian endodontic journal, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Ultrasonic vibration for metallic post removal seems to be a unanimous choice between endodontists and general practitioners for providing the best results and having the highest safety. This study compared the time required by ultrasonic vibration for removing metallic post (MP) when 1 or 2 ultrasonics devices are used. Materials and Methods: One hundred and fifteen teeth with MPs from 105 patients, indicated for nonsurgical endodontic retreatment were divided into 2 groups according to the number of ultrasonic devices used (G1-1 device) and (G2-2 devices). In G1, the MP was worn with a transmetal bur, alongside the wear of the cement line (around 2 mm deep). Then, an ultrasonic tip attached to an ultrasonic unit, with a power of 100% was activated at the level of the post, with constant water spray at a level of 1 mm above the axial surface of the tooth. The position of the tip was changed between buccal and lingual surfaces every 10 seconds until the MP was removed. In G2 the same procedures were performed as described in G1, but two ultrasonic tips were activated simultaneously at buccal and lingual surfaces until the MP was removed. The vibration time necessary for removing each MP was recorded using a chronometer. Results: The mean time was 131.10±29.68 seconds (mean±standard error of the mean) for MP removal using one ultrasonic device, and 24.86±6.88 seconds for two devices. The time required for MP removal using two ultrasonic devices was significantly less than when using one ultrasonic device ( Conclusion: The technique with 2 ultrasonic devices proved to be more efficient than the one using only 1 ultrasonic device.
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.