ArticleOdontology2026
The effect of supplementary methods on root canal cleaning: a study using 3D-printed mandibular molar models.
Article in Odontology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Multimodal Evaluation of Three NiTi Rotary Systems: Clinical Simulation, Mechanical Testing, and Finite Element Analysis.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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the cleaning effect of different irrigation and activation techniques in removing residual tissue from the root canal system using 3D-printed resin models based on micro-CT scans of natural teeth. Eleven first mandibular molars with different anatomies were selected, scanned, and replicated six times each, resulting in 66 3D resin models. A hydrogel-based like pulp tissue was injected into the canals to simulate tissue. The samples were divided into six groups: (1) irrigation with saline solution without activation (control), (2) use of positive pressure with NaOCl, (3) sonic activation, (4) wireless PUI activation, (5) conventional wired PUI activation, and (6) XP-Endo finisher agitation. Cleaning efficiency was evaluated by comparing the images before and after irrigation using ImageJ software, quantifying the percentage of remaining tissue. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey's test (p < 0.05). Rinsing with saline solution showed the worst cleaning performance in all canal thirds (p < 0.05). XP-Endo Finisher, Sonic Activation, Wireless PUI, Conventional PUI, and Conventional Syringe Irrigation with NaOCl significantly outperformed saline irrigation. In the apical third, XP-Endo Finisher achieved the lowest residual tissue percentage (5.79%), while saline had the highest (53.82%). No significant differences were found among activation techniques (p > 0.05), not even between the activation techniques and positive pressure irrigation with NaOCl. Sonic Activation and XP-Endo Finisher eliminated tissue in some samples of the middle third. NaOCl irrigation alone effectively dissolves the hydrogel tissue even without activation. Although activation techniques do not provide a consistent statistical advantage, they remain valuable in complex anatomies. Complete tissue removal, particularly in the apical third, remains a challenge. Future research should validate these results in clinical settings and optimize irrigation protocols for improved outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40314705What 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.