ArticleOdontology2025
Do instrument kinematics and the apical preparation limit influence canal disinfection and bacterial extrusion?
Article in Odontology, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This in vitro research assessed the influence of the instrument kinematics (rotary and reciprocating) and the apical preparation limit on the root canal disinfection and apical bacterial extrusion. After 21 days of Enterococcus faecalis biofilm formation in 72 mesial root canals of mandibular molars, the root canals were distributed into 2 groups (n = 36) according to the systems used for preparation: ProDesign S and Reciproc. The groups were redistributed according to the limit of apical preparation (n = 11): (a) 1 mm up to the apical foramen (TL-1); (b) at the apical foramen (TL = 0); (c) 1 mm beyond the apical foramen (TL + 1). After preparation, the remaining biofilm adhered to the dentin walls at the apical third was removed by sonication. The aliquots of bacterial suspension released, and the irrigating solution leaked through the apical foramen during preparation were plated for colony-forming units (CFUs) counting. Data were statistically assessed by the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests (α = 5%). Both systems promoted decontamination of the apical third, regardless the limit of apical preparation (p > 0.05). A larger quantity of bacteria was extruded from the root canals prepared 1 mm beyond the apical foramen, regardless the instrumentation kinematics (p < 0.05). The apical third of the root canal was efficiently decontaminated after preparation, regardless the instrumentation kinematics and the apical limit. However, a larger quantity of bacterial extrusion was observed when preparation was performed beyond the anatomical root canal limits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39743655What 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.