Trial reportScientific reports2025
Impact of minimally invasive root canal treatment on healing outcomes in a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- TruNatomy versus protaper gold for postoperative pain in pulpitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.The Saudi dental journal · 2026Review
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
Minimally invasive endodontic treatment has been an important topic of discussion in recent years, particularly in endodontics. This randomized prospective clinical trial aimed to assess outcomes after at least 2 years following two distinct root canal treatment (RCT) protocols: (1) conventional treatment protocol (CP) and (2) minimally invasive protocol (MP), with a focus on the amount of root canal preparation. 175 mature permanent teeth were randomly assigned to one of two groups. The CP group was treated using ProTaper Gold systems and the continuous wave condensation technique, while the MP group underwent treatment with TruNatomy, ultrasonic-associated irrigation, calcium hydroxide (Ca[OH]₂), and a sealer-based obturation technique. The patients were recalled after a minimum of 2 years, and the outcome was dichotomized into success or failure according to strict and loose criteria, respectively. The results were analyzed statistically through chi-squared, Fisher's exact tests or t-tests, followed by multivariable logistic regression analysis. A total of 125 teeth were analyzed, with a recall rate of 67.4% and an average follow-up period of 36 months (24-46 months). The overall success rates were 84.8% for loose criteria (CP 91.9%, MP 77.8%) and 80.8% for strict criteria (CP 88.7%, MP 71.4%), with statistically significant differences observed between the groups (p = 0.027 and p = 0.016, respectively). The MP group and the presence of sinus tract were associated with a greater risk of failure under both loose and strict criteria. Within the constraints of this protocol-which combined minimal preparation with supplemental disinfection techniques-the MP group exhibited significantly lower success rates than the CP group. While MP may offer benefits in structural preservation, clinicians should carefully weigh these advantages against the potential compromise in treatment outcomes. Trial registration: CRIS, KCT0005351. Registered on 25 August 2020.
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.