ArticleEuropean endodontic journal2025
Effectiveness of Three Rotary File Systems on Enterococcus Faecalis in Single Rooted Teeth: An In Vitro Study.
Article in European endodontic journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the effectiveness of three rotary file systems on the elimination of Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis) biofilms in single-rooted teeth.
methodsA total of 70 mandibular premolars were included in this study in which 60 root canals were inoculated with E. faecalis. The positive control group (n=5) received bacterial inoculation without mechanical preparation. The negative control group (n=5) was neither infected nor mechanically prepared. The teeth were randomly assigned to 3 experimental groups (n=20 per-group) according to application of the rotary files: Group 1: XP-endo Rise Shaper (FKG, Le Crêt-du-Locle, Switzerland); Group 2: XP-endo Shaper (FKG, Le Crêt-du-Locle, Switzerland); Group 3: ProTaper Gold (Dentsply Sirona, Erlangen, Germany). Samples were collected using paper points before (S1) and after (S2) mechanical preparation. Colony-forming units (CFUs) were used to quantify bacterial loads.
resultsSignificant differences in bacterial counts were observed from S1 to S2 in all tested groups (p<0.001). Intergroup comparisons revealed no significant differences between the XP-endo Rise Shaper and XP-endo Shaper groups (p>0.05) and between XP-endo Shaper and ProTaper Gold groups (p>0.05). Significant differences were observed between the XP-endo Rise Shaper and ProTaper Gold groups (p<0.05). The XP-endo Rise shaper group showed the largest reduction in bacterial loads (98.2%), followed by the XP-endo Shaper (96.0%) and ProTaper Gold (93.8%) groups.
conclusionAll tested rotary files were able to reduce bacteria but the novel single-file system (XP-endo Rise shaper) was superior in reducing bacterial load compared to XP-endo Shaper and the multiple file system (ProTaper Gold). (EEJ-2024-08-133).
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.