ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2025
Fracture resistance and volumetric dentin change after management of broken instrument using static navigation - An
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 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.
- Evaluation of different methods for separated file retrieval from the apical third of curved root canals:Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Sample size calculation practices in original research articles of the Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics (2021-2025).Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- Effects of different platform preparation and retrieval techniques on broken file removal and fracture strength.Brazilian oral research · 2026Article
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
Context: Guided endodontics has been revolutionizing endodontics, emphasizing the need to further investigate its capabilities in terms of degrading separated instruments will be of great value. Aims: The aim of this study was to compare, in vitro, the static endodontic guide and ultrasonic methods for managing separated instruments, focusing on fracture resistance, dentin changes, and procedural time. Materials and Methods: Twenty-two extracted double-rooted maxillary first premolars were decoronated to 15 mm in length and mounted in acrylic resin blocks for standardized cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scanning. Size 25/0.06 rotary files were notched at 3 mm and separated in the coronal third of the buccal canals under controlled conditions. Teeth were randomly assigned into two groups ( Statistical Analysis: Normality tested; t-test for parametric, Mann-Whitney for nonparametric. Results: The ultrasonic group showed significantly higher fracture resistance and less root canal volume increase compared to the static endodontic guide group. However, the ultrasonic group required significantly more time for retrieval. All differences were statistically significant ( Conclusions: The study compares ultrasonic and static endodontic guides for instrument retrieval, highlighting static endodontic guides' speeds but increased dentin loss, deeming them unsuitable for degrading instruments with burs. Further research is needed.
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.