ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Real-time guided endodontics versus conventional freehand access cavity preparation by a specialist- an ex vivo comparative study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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.
- Pulp calcification and pulp canal obliteration: from biological mechanisms to contemporary clinical management and digital navigation.The Saudi dental journal · 2026Review
- Comparative evaluation between guided endodontics and conventional technique: A prospective clinical study.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Accuracy and dentin conservation of guided endodontic access versus conventional access in simulated calcified canals: A micro-CTBioinformation · 2026Article
- Evaluation of an intraoral scan-assisted registration method for guided endodontics: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Guided Endodontics-Potential and Limitations.Australian dental journal · 2025Review
- Accuracy of Dynamic Navigation vs. Freehand Endodontic Access Cavity Preparation in 3-Dimensionally Printed Teeth with Severe Pulp Canal Calcification.Journal of functional 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study compared conventional access cavity preparation (CONV) and real-time guided endodontics (RTGE) in teeth with pulp canal calcification (PCC) regarding the rate of detected root canals, substance loss and procedural time. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 72 extracted, sound human teeth (48 incisors, 24 canines) with PCC were matched in pairs, divided into two groups of 36 teeth each. An endodontic specialist performed CONV, while a general dentist not specialized in endodontics utilized RTGE on six models each, under simulated clinical conditions. The operators recorded the time to access the calcified root canals. Pre- and postoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were obtained to measure substance loss. Statistical significance was tested by examining the overlap of 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and Fisher's exact test.
resultsRTGE had a marginally higher success rate (34/36) in detecting root canals compared to CONV (32/36) (p =.67). While RTGE resulted in less substance loss (CI: 9-14.3 mm
conclusionsBoth CONV by a specialist and RTGE by a general dentist achieved a high detection rate of root canals, with RTGE resulting in superior tooth substance preservation but at the expense of longer operation times. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: RTGE can be considered as an alternative technique for non-specialists when treating teeth with PCC, emphasizing procedural safety and effective canal detection.
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.