ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2024
Comparative Evaluation of Effectiveness of Rotary and Hand File Systems in Terms of Quality of Obturation and Instrumentation Time among Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Postoperative Pain After Root Canal Preparation With Different Instruments in Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of rotary NiTi files with ultrasonic irrigation and manual K-files with syringe irrigation in primary molar pulpectomy: A retrospective cohort study.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Efficiency and obturation quality of Kedo-S rotary files versus hand files in pediatric endodontics.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Assessment of Undergraduate Training in Pulpectomy Using Model Teeth and Extracted Natural Teeth.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2025Article
- Review
- Review
- Instrumentation timing for manual K file and different pedatric rotary files systems in deciduous mandibular molars.Bioinformation · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to answer the following focused question: Are rotary file systems more effective than hand file systems in terms of the quality of obturation and instrumentation time among primary teeth? Study eligibility criteria participants and interventions: The inclusion criteria comprised studies that compared the effect on quality of obturation and instrumentation time among primary teeth after using rotary and hand file systems for biomechanical preparation of the root canals. Materials and methods: This review was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines. The searched databases included Medline ( Results: The search resulted in 8,003 published studies. After the removal of duplicate studies and full-text analysis, 9 studies were selected for systematic review, and 8 were selected for meta-analysis. Overall, the results demonstrated the promising effects of rotary file systems in reducing instrumentation time and improving obturation quality compared to hand files. Conclusion: Within the limitations of this review, it can be asserted that rotary file systems are superior to hand files in primary teeth for pulpectomy procedures. Clinical significance: Rotary files, a more recent technique, are more efficient than traditional hand files in lowering the time required for instrumentation. Additionally, they provide superior obturation quality in primary molars, making them particularly beneficial for pediatric patients. How to cite this article: Gala UP, Kalaskar R, Vinay V,
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.