ArticleExperimental and therapeutic medicine2024
Different strategies for treating intracanal fractured instruments in a single tooth: A case report.
Article in Experimental and therapeutic medicine, 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.
- Expert consensus on management of instrument separation in root canal therapy.International journal of oral science · 2025Review
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
A fractured instrument (FI) in the root canal is a common complication during root canal therapy. Under current medical conditions, instrument separation cannot be completely avoided because of the complex morphology of root canals and the limited surgical field and operating space of the surgeon. FIs, especially those broken in the apical third of the canal, render it difficult to completely remove infection in the root canal, where the residual infection can easily develop into reinfection. The removal of FIs is therefore the preferred option for the majority of clinicians in such cases. However, root canal preparation instruments are frequently fractured during treatment because of the complex root canal morphology, such as curvature or severe calcification, which further increases the difficulty of instrument removal. In the present case, a 41-year-old female patient complained of worsening pain in the left maxillary first molar for 3 days. This patient had been treated at another hospital 2 years earlier, but the discomfort persisted after treatment. Preoperative periapical radiography revealed suspected FIs at the apical third of the mesiobuccal (MB) root and the middle third of the distal buccal (DB) root, underfilling of the palatal (P) root canal and large hypodense areas surrounding the periapical region of all roots. Next, the micro-ultrasound technique was used to remove the FI in the DB canal; a bypass through the second MB canal (MB2) was created to fill the apical stop of the MB root and the P canal was retreated. The therapeutic effect of the bypass technique was assessed by comparing bypass treatment and removal treatment for endodontic FIs. The 9-month and 27-month follow-ups revealed that the periapical inflammation surrounding the DB root treated after removal of the FI and the MB root treated by bypass was significantly controlled compared with that before the operation. In addition, the present report reviewed the research progress in bypass and removal techniques, focusing on the difficulties and key points of successful root canal therapy.
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.