ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2025
Comparison of tooth substance loss and angle deviation in access cavity preparation using guided endodontics and conventional method in calcified canals - An in vitro study.
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 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.
- Pulp calcification and pulp canal obliteration: from biological mechanisms to contemporary clinical management and digital navigation.The Saudi dental journal · 2026Review
- Impact of Various Sleeve Materials on Temperature Variations During Guided Endodontic Access Cavity Preparation Utilizing Finite-Element Analysis.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation between guided endodontics and conventional technique: A prospective clinical study.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Fracture resistance and volumetric dentin change after management of broken instrument using static navigation - AnJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: This study aimed to evaluate the accuracy of access cavity preparation using guided endodontics (GE) and conventional technique (CT) in calcified canals. Subjects and Methods: Twenty teeth with calcification up to middle third were collected after scanning through RadioVisioGraphy (RVG). Preoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan was done and samples were randomly divided into two groups of ten samples each on the basis of method of access cavity preparation. Group 1: Access cavity was prepared by CT, Group 2: Access cavity was prepared by GE. 3D template and corresponding guide drill were made for group 2 samples after performing optical surface scans. After access cavity preparation, postoperative CBCT scanning was performed for all samples. The amount of tooth structure loss and angle deviation were calculated using Sidexis Software. Statistical Analysis Used: The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics, version 22. A t-test compared tooth structure loss and angle deviation between groups, and a one-way ANOVA calculated tooth structure loss in multiple directions for both groups (P < 0.001). Results: Our study found that the mean tooth volume loss (17.19 mm Conclusion: GE is more accurate and conservative than CT in management of calcified 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.