ArticleBMC oral health2024
The comparative study of temperature rise, time consuming and cut quality among piezosurgery, conventional rotary instruments and Er: YAG laser in apicectomy.
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 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Efficacy of Er:YAG laser in removal of impacted mandibular third molars (a randomized controlled clinical trial).BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Efficacy of root end cavity preparation techniques on gap formation of different mineral trioxide aggregate based root end filling materials: micro-computed tomography study.BMC oral health · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to compare the temperature rise, time consuming and cut quality of apicectomy using three different methods. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-four single-rooted teeth were collected and divided into four groups operating apicectomy with a NINJA tip of a piezoelectric device (G1), a diamond bur with 300,000 rpm (G2), and Er: YAG laser at 200 mJ/ 30 Hz (G3) as well as 250 mJ/ 30 Hz (G4). The temperature elevation and time were recorded and the cut quality was evaluated via stereomicroscope and scanning electronic microscopy (SEM).
resultsThe temperature increases for G1 was significantly higher than for G2. However, there was no significant difference between G1 and G2 with laser groups respectively. The median time for apicectomy was: 100.14s for G1, 22.65s for G2, 33.58s for G3, and 21.80s for G4. G1 is the most time-consuming group and there was no statistically significance in the comparisons with G2, G3 and G4. Cut quality was assessed by crack occurrence, smear layer formation and dentinal tubules exposed. The percentage of cracked teeth in G1 and G2 was 33.33% and for laser groups the percentage was 16.67% each. SEM showed that no smear layer formed and almost all dentinal tubules were exposed on resected surfaces for G3&G4, surfaces from G2 were partly covered by smear layer, and surfaces from G1 were fully covered by smear layer and with no dentinal tubules exposed.
conclusionsEr: YAG laser and conventional rotary instruments were safe and efficient for apicectomy and with a better cut quality when compared with piezoelectric equipment. Er: YAG laser could be a promising technique for apicectomy and further studies are necessary, especially larger sample in vivo investigations, to verify the feasibility of Er: YAG laser in endodontic surgery.
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.