ArticleBMC oral health2025
Evaluation of the shaping effectiveness of three different rotary systems and hand files in primary molars: a micro-CT in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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.
- A comparison of the shaping efficiency of three Ni-Ti heat-treated files in second primary molars pulpectomy: an in-vitro CBCT study.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026Article
- Cone -beam computed tomographic (CBCT) analysis of root canal volume changes with OneShape, standard Mani -silk and BlueFlex acer file: AnBioinformation · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMechanical preparation is one of the critical stages of root canal treatment in primary teeth. Therefore, the aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of root canal shaping in primary molar teeth using EndoArt Pedo Blue, OneShape, Hyflex EDM rotary files and stainless-steel K-files by assessing changes in canal volume, uninstrumented area and apical transportation three-dimensionally with the use of micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) scans.
methodsA sample size of 60 primary maxillary first and second molars were randomly assigned into four subgroups (n = 15/group). A single-trained operator instrumented the root canals using OneShape, Hyflex EDM and Endo-Art Pedo Blue rotary files and stainless-steel K-files. The change in volume, uninstrumented area and apical transportation were then evaluated by comparing the pre-instrumentation and post-instrumentation micro-CT scans of the teeth. The data were analysed using Kruskal Wallis tests for comparisons between groups, followed by post-hoc The Bonferroni test (p < 0.012).
resultsBoth EndoArt Pedo Blue and OneShape rotary files lead to more apical transportation than the K-files (p < 0.012). Although EndoArt rotary file caused the largest change in canal volume and Hyflex EDM file resulted in the most uninstrumented areas in the canals, there were no statistically significant differences in change in canal volume and uninstrumented areas among the four experiment groups (p > 0.012).
conclusionsAll instruments tested in this study could safely shape curved and narrow root canals of primary molars, however K-files lead to less apical transportation than OneShape and paediatric rotary EndoArt Pedo Blue files. It may be concluded that it is safe to use rotary instrumentation in root canal shaping of primary teeth that are designed for primary and permanent teeth. However, K-files may provide more tactile sensation than the tested Endo-Art pediatric and OneShape rotary files, which is important in primary root canal shaping to avoid extrusion of material to the permanent teeth germs.
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.