ReviewDentistry journal2024
In Vitro Research Methods Used to Evaluate Shaping Ability of Rotary Endodontic Files-A Literature Review.
Review in Dentistry journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Three-Dimensional Filling Quality of Cold Lateral vs Warm Vertical Condensation: A Micro-CT and CBCT-Based Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.European endodontic journal · 2025Pooled it
- Comparison of the Canal Transportation and Centering Ability of TruNatomy, WaveOne Gold and Protaper Ultimate: An Ex Vivo Study in Human Maxillary Molars.European endodontic journal · 2025Article
- Effect of mechanized instrumentation on distal wall thickness of the second mesiobuccal canal.Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL · 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
BACKGROUND/
objectivesIn this article, we present a literature review of methods used to measure the shaping ability of endodontic rotary files, including the selection of endodontic sample type (extracted teeth versus simulated blocks) and an imaging evaluation method. This review was conducted as background research to identify concerns that arise when designing research studies in this domain and propose how the field can plan more systematic studies going forward.
methodsA literature search was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and e B-on databases, including studies published in English from January 2010 to June 2024. Only studies that specified in vitro or ex vivo methods for evaluating the endodontic performance of NiTi rotary files on canal transportation and centering ability were considered.
resultsA total of 86 studies met the inclusion criteria from an initial pool of 651. Of these, 67 studies used extracted teeth, while 20 utilized simulated root canals in resin blocks. For evaluation methods, 55 studies employed Micro-Computed Tomography and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (MCT + CBCT), 30 used Double Digital Images/Radiographs/Photographs (DDIR + DDIP) with software analysis, 1 used both DDIR and MCT, 1 used high-precision nano-CT, and 1 used a digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) camera.
conclusionsThe findings indicate that the MCT method and its advanced variations appear superior in many cases for evaluating the quality of root canal instrumentation due to their ability to provide detailed three-dimensional images. We also discuss the pros and cons of other evaluation methods, including CBCT and DDIR. Finally, we identify important factors to consider for optimizing future cross-study comparisons. This work highlights the importance of being familiar with shaping ability assessment methods as new instruments are introduced to the market.
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.