ReviewJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Impact of instrumentation kinematics on post endodontic pain-an umbrella review with stratification of evidence and sensitivity analysis.
Review in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prospective comparative study on postoperative pain after single-visit root canal treatment using rotary and reciprocating kinematics.Odontology · 2026Article
- Effect of Apical Third Enlargement to Different Preparation Sizes and Tapers on Postoperative Pain and Intra-canal Bacterial Reduction: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- Comparison of post-operative pain between rotary and reciprocating file systems in root canal therapy: AnBioinformation · 2026Article
- Evaluating success rates of rotary NiTi versus reciprocating files in endodontic treatment.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Evidence synthesis of postoperative pain with bioceramic vs. epoxy resin sealers: umbrella review of randomized trials within existing systematic reviews.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Our umbrella review examines the impact of instrumentation kinematics on postoperative pain in endodontic treatment by synthesizing current evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Methods: We performed an extensive search across six major electronic databases up to March 2025, focusing on English-language literature comparing rotary and reciprocating instrumentation systems. Quality assessment was rigorously conducted using the AMSTAR 2 tool, and a comprehensive risk of bias evaluation was carried out using the ROBIS tool. Results: Our analysis incorporated eight systematic reviews, seven of which provided meta-analytic data, thus ensuring a robust consolidation of findings. The results reveal that rotary instrumentation generally produces lower overall post-operative pain levels compared to reciprocating systems. However, the influence of instrumentation type appears to be time-dependent, with evidence suggesting that reciprocating systems may offer advantages in the immediate post-operative phase by reducing mild pain within 24 h. The review underscores the multifactorial nature of post-operative pain, where clinical outcomes are influenced not only by instrumentation kinematics but also by patient-specific factors, operator experience, and procedural variables. Conclusion: The insights provided by our review contribute to the current understanding of endodontic pain management and encourage further research utilizing standardized methodologies and extended follow-up periods to elucidate long-term outcomes. These findings have significant implications for clinical practice and the development of patient-centered treatment protocols in endodontics.
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.