Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39346454›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024

Investigating Apically Extruded Debris During Pulpectomy with Two Rotary Systems and Hand Files.

Jk Sonia Bai, Kanika Singh Dhull, Niladri Maiti, Indira M Devraj, Subhajit Bohidar, Suman Sharma

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jk Sonia BaiDepartment of Dental Surgery, SV Medical College, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, India.
Kanika Singh DhullDepartment of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, KIIT Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Niladri MaitiSchool of Dentistry, Central Asian University, Tashkent, Uzbekistan.
Indira M DevrajDepartment of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, JSS Dental College and Hospital, JSS Academy of Higher Education and Research, Mysore, Karnataka, India.
Subhajit BohidarDepartment of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Mithila Minority Dental College and Hospital, Darbhanga, Bihar, India.
Suman SharmaDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, Pihu Dental Hospital, Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: The current research set out to examine and contrast the amounts of apically extruded debris produced by two distinct rotary files and hand files used in pulpectomy procedures. Materials and Methods: Forty-five extracted primary mandibular molars were randomly divided into three groups for instrumentation. Prime Pedo™ files are in Group 1, DXL-Pro Pedo files are in Group 2, and H and K files are in Group 3. Debris that had been apically extruded and collected in preweighed Eppendorf tubes was incubated for five days at 70°C. The weight of the Eppendorf tubes before and after instrumentation was subtracted to get the weight of the debris that was gathered. Results: It was noted that all three groups had significantly different amounts of material ejected from the tip. The groups with the lightest amounts of extruded debris were 1, 2, and 3, in that order. The most debris was extruded from the apex in Group 3. Conclusion: This suggests that rotary files are preferable to hand files because they reduce debris extrusion, which in turn reduces postoperative events following pulpectomy procedures.

Indexed as

Apically extruded debrishand filespulpectomy procedurerotary files

Identifiers

PMID39346454
PMCPMC11426853

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.