ArticleBMC oral health2024
Evaluation of apically extruded debris during root canal filling material removal in teeth with external apical root resorption: a comparison of different obturation techniques.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRoot canal retreatment is necessary when initial treatment fails. Nickel-titanium systems help remove filling materials; however, some methods can cause canal content extrusion, resulting in inflammation and delayed healing. This study aimed to examine the impact of different preparation techniques and endodontic file systems on apical debris volume to limit material dispersion to periradicular tissues.
methodsNinety extracted maxillary incisors were evaluated. Simulated apical root resorption was created by removing the apical 2 mm of the root. The teeth were divided into two groups: one filled with a single cone and the other with cold lateral compaction (CLC). Each group was further divided into three subgroups (n = 15 each): Subgroup 1 used Reciproc R25 for removal and R50 for final preparation; Subgroup 2 used ProTaper Universal Retreatment (PTUR) files D1, D2, and D3 for removal and ProTaper Next X5 for finalization; and Subgroup 3 used VDW.Rotate Retreatment (VDW.RotateR) for removal and VDW.Rotate 50.04 for completion. Debris from retreatment was collected in pre-weighed tubes to determine the amount. The apical extrusion data underwent a two-way analysis of variance.
resultsThe Reciproc group had a mean extruded debris weight of 0.54 ± 0.24 mg, higher than the PTUR (0.28 ± 0.15 mg) and VDW.RotateR (0.39 ± 0.29 mg) groups (p < 0.05). The single-cone technique (SCT) resulted in a mean debris weight of 0.34 ± 0.23 mg, lower than the CLC technique, which had a mean of 0.46 ± 0.27 mg (p < 0.05). SCT had a shorter retreatment duration (111.12 ± 33.46 s) compared to CLC (176.26 ± 52.26 s) (p < 0.05).
conclusionThe Reciproc file system and the CLC obturation technique resulted in greater apical debris extrusion than the other methods. SCT was quicker than CLC. The Reciproc groups are more susceptible to apex extrusion during retreatment.
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.