ArticleRestorative dentistry & endodontics2024
Procedural errors detected by cone beam tomography in cases with indication for retreatment:
Article in Restorative dentistry & endodontics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Management of Ledge Formation and Perforations in Endodontics: A Survey of Knowledge, Attitudes, Practices, and Perceptions Among General Dental Practitioners and Endodontists.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- Impact of Downward Load and Rotational Kinematics on Root Canal Instrumentation with a Heat-Treated Nickel-Titanium Rotary Instrument.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Repair of furcal perforations using different calcium silicate cements: AnJournal 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to investigate the frequency and type of endodontic procedural errors in cases indicated for retreatment through cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) analysis. Materials and Methods: The sample consisted of 96 CBCT scans, encompassing 122 permanent teeth with fully formed roots. Errors included perforation, instrument fracture, canal transportation, missed canals, and inadequate apical limit of filling. Additionally, potential risk factors were analyzed and subjected to statistical modeling. Results: The most frequent procedural error observed was the inadequate apical limit of filling, followed by canal transportation, perforation, missed canal, and instrument fracture. Statistically significant associations were identified between various procedural errors and specific factors. These include canal transportation and root canal wall, with the buccal wall being the most commonly affected; missed canal and tooth type, particularly the palatine and second mesiobuccal canal canals; inadequate apical limit of filling and root curvature, showing a higher deviation to the mesial direction in severely curved canals; inadequate apical limit of filling and the presence of calcifications, with underfilling being the most frequent; canal transportation and periapical lesion, notably with deviation to the buccal direction; and the direction of perforation and periapical lesion, most frequently occurring to buccal direction. Conclusions: CBCT emerges as a valuable tool in identifying procedural errors and associated factors, crucial for their prevention and management.
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.