SynthesisEuropean archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry2026
Comparing the use of pediatric files and conventional files in primary teeth: a systematic review.
Synthesis in European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPulp damage challenges pediatric dentists, mainly due to variations in the root canal system of primary teeth. GOAL: To compare the use of pediatric and conventional manual and mechanized files in primary teeth as to filling quality, instrumentation time, and postoperative pain.
designThis systematic review aligned with PRISMA was registered in PROSPERO. Clinical studies comparing pediatric and conventional files were included. The search was conducted until May 05, 2025, in five electronic databases (MEDLINE/EMBASE/Google Scholar/Cochrane), gray literature, and reference lists. Methodological quality (Rob-2), meta-analyses, and assessment of evidence certainty (GRADE) were performed. Of 3,643 studies, 10 were qualified for meta-analysis.
resultsThere was better filling quality (OR = 4.57 [1.78-11.74] and lower chance of sub-filling [OR = 6.40 [1.53-26.67] in root canals treated with manual pediatric files. There was no difference between pediatric and conventional mechanized files regarding the filling quality. The instrumentation time was shorter with manual (MD = - 38.21[- 73.17 to 3.24], I
conclusionInstrumentation with pediatric hand files may provide better obturation quality, and pediatric hand or mechanized files require less instrumentation time and may result in less postoperative pain.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40668301What 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.