ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
Comparative Evaluation of Three File Systems for Shaping Curved Canals: An
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Analysis of Rotary Systems in Curved Root Canals: Evaluation of Wear, Transportation, and Centering Capacity.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Comparison of Shaping Ability and Apical Debris Extrusion Using 4 Different Nickel-Titanium Single-File Systems.International journal of biomaterials · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To compare and evaluate the shaping ability of ProTaper Next, TruNatomy, and Flexer heat activation rotary files in simulated curved canals. Materials and Methods: Forty-five severely curved simulated canals in resin blocks were prepared to an apical size of 25 using the following systems (n = 15 per group): ProTaper Next, TruNatomy, and Flexer heat activation. Composite images were made from the superimposition of pre- and post-instrumentation images. Parameters evaluated were total resin removal, centering ability, canal transportation (at the apical, curved, and coronal part), and preparation time. Results: Canals prepared with TruNatomy were better centered in the apical part than those prepared with PTN and Flexer heat activation. Flexer heat activation removed significantly more resin at the outer aspect of the maximum point of curvature. PTN and TruNatomy caused similar canal transportations. Instrumentation with Flexer heat activation required more time than with the two other instruments. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the study, all instruments were safe to use and preserved the original canal shape well. In the apical part of the canals, TruNatomy obtained the best results with regard to canal transportation. Clinical Significance: These findings underscore the importance of considering file selection based on specific canal characteristics and treatment objectives to optimize clinical outcomes in endodontic practice.
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.