ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2025
Impact of different gutta-percha removal techniques on dentinal integrity: An
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2025. 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.
- Minimally invasive versus conventional apical enlargement during retreatment of severely curved mesial canals: A micro-CT study.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Comparison of Solite RE Black and WaveOne Gold File Systems for Removal of Root Canal Filling Material: An Ex Vivo Nano CT Study.Dentistry 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of different gutta-percha removal (GPR) techniques on the occurrence of dentinal defects in bovine root canals. Material and Methods: One hundred and eight bovine incisors were selected and stored in distilled water. The crowns were removed, leaving roots approximately 17 mm in length. Twelve roots were left unprepared and served as control (G1), and the remaining 96 roots were instrumented with BioRace files up to size 40/.04 (BR5) and filled with gutta-percha and Sealapex sealer using the lateral condensation technique. Twelve other roots were left filled and received no retreatment procedure (G2). The remaining 84 roots underwent filling material removal with R-Endo (G3), D-Race (G4), WaveOne Gold (G5), ProTaper Retreatment (G6), Mtwo R (G7), Reciproc (G8) instruments or with R1-Clearsonic ultrasonic insert (G9). After GPR, final apical enlargement was achieved using a BR7 (#60/.02) instrument. Roots were sectioned 3, 6 and 9 mm from the apex and observed under a stereomicroscope at 25ᵡ magnification. The presence/absence of root fractures, microcracks, and craze lines were recorded. Chi-square tests compared the incidence of dentinal defects between the groups, with a significance level set at Results: Defects occurred in 46.6% of the samples. No defects were observed in the unprepared canals (control, G1). Defects were detected in all other experimental groups (G2 to G9). Among retreatment techniques the R-Endo group (G3) presented significantly higher microcracks and craze lines ( Conclusions: All GPR methods were linked to dentinal defects. The R-Endo system significantly increased microcracks and craze lines.
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.