ArticleBMC oral health2025
Comparison of the pull-out force of different microtube-based methods in fractured endodontic instrument removal: An in-vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of different methods for separated file retrieval from the apical third of curved root canals:Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Removal of Extraradicular Separated Instrument by Targeted Endodontic Microsurgery Using the 3D-Printed Guide and Trephine: A Case Report.Clinical case reports · 2025Article
- Influence of Thermal Pretreatments on the Cyclic Fatigue Resistance of Novel Reciprocating Nickel-Titanium Files: A Comparison of Low- and High-Temperature Modified Systems.European endodontic journal · 2025Article
- Expert consensus on management of instrument separation in root canal therapy.International journal of oral science · 2025Review
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
backgroundThe fracture of an endodontic instrument within the root canal system can occur during root canal therapy, complicating thorough cleaning and shaping. Consequently, managing the broken fragment becomes crucial.
methodsEighty Nickel-titanium (NiTi) #20 K-files (Mani, Tochigi, Japan) were cut 8 mm from the tip, fixed into a corkboard, and classified into five groups (n = 14 each). The microtube-based methods included: microtube with cyanoacrylate glue (group 1), light-cured flowable composite resin (group 2), wire (group 3), internal shaft (group 4), and laser (group 5). Each method grasped the separated instrument's free end above the corkboard, and a pull-out test was performed using a universal testing machine(UTM). Additionally, 10 samples were separated in extracted canine root canals, and the temperature of the outer surface of the root was measured using the microtube and laser methods.
resultsGroups 1 and 4 exhibited significantly greater pull-out force compared to the other groups (p < 0.001). Groups 2 and 5 demonstrated significantly lower pull-out forces (p < 0.001). In Group 5, the temperature increase was 11 °C on the tube surface and 3 °C on the root surface.
conclusionAll microtube-based techniques are effective for fractured instrument removal, with cyanoacrylate glue and laser methods being particularly suitable for cases that require higher force.
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.