ArticleInternational endodontic journal2025
Clinical outcome of guided endodontics versus freehand drilling: A controlled clinical trial, single arm with external control group.
Article in International endodontic journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pulp calcification and pulp canal obliteration: from biological mechanisms to contemporary clinical management and digital navigation.The Saudi dental journal · 2026Review
- Static-Guided Endodontics for Complex Intracanal Obstructions and Zirconia Post Removal: Report on Three Cases.Clinical case reports · 2026Article
- Accuracy and dentin conservation of guided endodontic access versus conventional access in simulated calcified canals: A micro-CTBioinformation · 2026Article
- Endodontic Microsurgery as a Primary Treatment for Pulp Canal Obliteration With Apical Periodontitis: Case Reports.Case reports in dentistry · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of the digital static guide versus the freehand approach in endodontic microsurgery: in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Guided Endodontics-Potential and Limitations.Australian dental journal · 2025Review
- Accuracy of Dynamic Navigation vs. Freehand Endodontic Access Cavity Preparation in 3-Dimensionally Printed Teeth with Severe Pulp Canal Calcification.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Primary Evaluation of Three-Dimensional Printing-Guided Endodontics in the Dog Maxillary.Veterinary sciences · 2025Article
- Guided endodontics in the application of personalized mini-invasive treatment in clinical cases: a literature review.The Saudi dental journal · 2025Review
- How effective is CBCT-guided endodontic access over 'brain-guided' accesses, and is this a likely addition to the general dental practitioner's armamentarium?Evidence-based dentistry · 2025Article
- Clinical outcome of guided endodontics versus freehand drilling: A controlled clinical trial, single arm with external control group.International endodontic journal · 2025Article
- Guided Endodontic Treatment of an Upper Lateral Incisor: A Successful Outcome in the Presence of Procedural Errors-A Case Report.Case reports in dentistry · 2025Article
- Custom Sleeve Parameters in Static Guided Endodontic Access: Influence on Deviation Control in Pulp Canal Obliteration.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimHigh-quality, prospective clinical studies are needed to increase evidence for guided endodontics. This study aims to assess the clinical outcome of guided endodontics for treatment of teeth presenting with pulp canal obliteration (PCO) in comparison with freehand treatment. METHODOLOGY: This trial was registered in the ISRCTN.com registry (ISRCTN75277265) and designed as a controlled clinical trial: Single arm trial, prospective, nonrandomized, single-centre study (ethical approval number S64630). Inclusion criteria were; tooth presenting with PCO and symptoms and/or signs of apical periodontitis (AP). An external control group was selected from clinical records of patients presenting the same criteria but treated freehanded. Guided root canal treatments were performed by the same operator on all patients. Freehanded treatments were performed by a specialist in endodontics under microscope with pre-operative CBCT available. Primary outcome for both groups was evaluated as: canal found, canal not found, or perforation. As secondary outcome, the qualitative accuracy of the drill path was assessed as: optimal precision, acceptable precision or technical failure. Patients were followed up yearly. Descriptive statistics on the study patient's demographics and healing outcome were performed and specific statistical analysis was performed on each outcome variable.
resultsA total of 133 teeth were included (n = 60 guided, n = 73 freehanded) from 128 patients (n = 59 guided, n = 69 freehanded). The primary outcome for the guided group was: 59 teeth canals found and 1 tooth canal not found. No perforations were recorded. In the freehanded group, the root canal was successfully found in 59 teeth, seven were not found, and seven had a perforation. An analysis of all data showed that guided endodontics presented statistically significant better outcome than freehand treatment (p < .05).
conclusionGuided endodontics showed a statistically significant better outcome than freehanded treatment resulting in less technical failures. However, it is a complex procedure which should be carried out by an experienced endodontist with the aid of a dental microscope.
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.