ArticleDental research journal2024
Evaluation of apically extruded debris from root canal filling removal of the mesiobuccal canal of maxillary molars using XP shaper and protaper with two different irrigation.
Article in Dental research journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Periapical extrusion of debris for root retreatment will effectively improve the posttreatment inflammation and pain. The aim of this study was to investigate the extruded debris for root retreatment using XP shaper and ProTaper files. Materials and Methods: In his experimental laboratory study, 40 extracted human maxillary molars were used in this laboratory study. After disinfection and equalization of length, the samples were treated with a passive step-back technique and dressed. The samples placed in the tubes for retreatment were divided into four groups: (1) XP shaper file and hypochlorite, (2) XP shaper file and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), (3) ProTaper file and hypochlorite, and (4) ProTaper file and EDTA. Then, the teeth were taken out of the tubes, and cleaned to collect the remaining apical debris. The weight of the tube and the extruded debris was measured again. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test ( Results: The highest average of extruded debris was related to the XP shaper file with EDTA solution, and the lowest average was related to the ProTaper file with hypochlorite solution. Between the two files used with EDTA and hypochlorite solution, the average debris extrusion of the XP shaper file with EDTA solution was significantly higher ( Conclusion: Regardless of the type of irrigant material, the ProTaper file can be a more suitable option than the XP shaper file for retreatment of the tooth root canal with minimal debris extrusion.
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.