ArticleBMC oral health2025
Comparison of mechanical properties and shaping performance of ProGlider and ProTaper ultimate slider.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of different rotary instrument designs (protaper ultimate and protaper gold) on postoperative pain and bacterial reduction: a randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Association Between Cross-Sectional Geometry and Cyclic Fatigue Resistance of Nickel-Titanium Endodontic Instruments: A Systematic Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- In vitro assessment of geometric characteristics in canal preparation using nickel-titanium files used for minimal invasiveness: an experimental study.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2026Article
- File-Specific Cyclic Fatigue Resistance of NiTi Instruments After Repeated Use in Simulated Canals: Patterns Compatible with Potential Stress-Induced Martensite Transformation Effects.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Impact of Metallurgical and Geometric Features on the Cyclic Fatigue Strength of Reciprocating Endodontic Files.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Cyclic fatigue resistance, number of uses, and morphological/chemical analysis of RCS Rainbow Files, VDW Rotate and ProTaper Ultimate: in vitro 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aims to compare design, phase transformation behavior, and torsional resistance of the ProGlider (PG) and ProTaper ultimate slider (PUS) and to compare the performance of two files in the glide-path preparation of a double-curved artificial canal.
methodsScanning electron microscopy, micro-computed tomography, and differential scanning calorimetry were used to characterize the samples. A torsional resistance test was performed to obtain ultimate strength and distortion angle. Simulated glide-path preparation was conducted with a double-curved resin canal, and both PG and PUS were operated on by 300 and 400 rpms. Maximum screw-in force, torque generated during canal shaping, number of pecking strokes to reach the apex were compared between groups. After canal shaping centering ratio and alteration of files were assessed. Statistical analyses were performed using the Mann-Whitney U test, and the Kruskal-Wallis test with Bonferroni correction. A p value less than 0.05 was considered significant.
resultsWhile the PG had a square cross-section, the PUS had variable square and rhomboid cross-sections and alternating cutting-edge. PG and PUS have austenitic transformation starting and finishing temperatures of 24-25℃, and 57-59℃, respectively. Ultimate strength of PUS are superior to that of PG, whereas the distortion angle of PG is greater than that of PUS (p < 0.05). The maximum screw-in force and clockwise torque generated during glide-path preparation were highest in the PUS group rotated at 300 rpm (p < 0.05). Shaping with the PG at 300 rpm and shaping with the PUS at 400 rpm exhibited comparable maximum screw-in forces. There were no significant differences in the number of pecking strokes to reach the apex and centering ability among groups shaped with PG and PUS at both rotation speeds. PG shaped at 400 rpm demonstrated severe alteration on its surface, while PUS shaped at 300 and 400 rpms exhibited comparable surface alterations.
conclusionsPG has a constant square cross-section, while PUS has a variable cross-section and alternating cutting-edge. Using PUS at recommended speed of 400 rpm ensures safe use with minimal screw-in force and surface alteration. At recommended speeds, both PG and PUS perform comparably and are safe for double-curved canals.
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.