ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
Comparative Evaluation of the Efficiency in Retrieving Separated Reciprocating Instruments Using Three Different File Retrieval Systems in Maxillary First Molars: 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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of the ultrasonic, Masserann, and BTR-pen techniques for removing fractured instruments with dental microscope: a CBCT-based in vitro study.Acta odontologica Scandinavica · 2026Article
- Article
- Management of separated instruments using a loop technique: Case series with a rapid review.Dental research journal · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate the retrieval time, efficiency, and loss of dentin volume after separated instrument retrieval using three different file retrieval systems in the middle and apical thirds of the mesio-buccal root of maxillary first molars. Material and Methods: Sixty maxillary first molars were selected. Group 1: Endo Rescue Apex, Group 2: Ultrasound apex, Group 3: Broken instrument remover apex, Group 4: Endo Rescue Middle, Group 5: Ultrasound Middle, Group 6: Broken instrument Remover middle were used to retrieve the fractured reciprocating files from the root canals. Results: The results showed that the BTR pen system was successful in removing the majority of the files, with success rates of 60%. The BTR-Pen system achieved a 30% success rate, successfully removing 3 separated instruments from the middle third under a dental operating microscope within the time span. According to the statistical analysis of the dentinal thickness lost during retrieval of separated reciprocating instruments, BTR pens showed less amount of dentine loss than the ultrasonic and Endo rescue. Conclusion: The findings may guide further research on BTR's effectiveness in retrieving separated instruments, with additional clinical trials ongoing.
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.