ReviewCureus2025
Cleaning Effectiveness and Postoperative Pain Associated With Rotary Instrumentation in Primary Teeth: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Evidence.
Review in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rotary instrumentation in primary teeth pulpectomy is gaining popularity due to its potential to improve procedural efficiency and clinical outcomes. While existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRMAs) have explored rotary techniques, comparative evaluations of specific clinical endpoints, particularly cleaning effectiveness and postoperative pain, remain fragmented. This umbrella review synthesised evidence from SRMAs assessing rotary versus manual instrumentation in primary teeth, focusing on these two critical outcomes. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across six databases and grey literature until May 2025. Two eligible SRMAs were included: one addressed both cleaning effectiveness and postoperative pain, while the other focused solely on cleaning outcomes. Owing to clinical and statistical heterogeneity, meta-analysis was not feasible. Methodological quality appraisal using AMSTAR-2 rated one review as high confidence and the other as low confidence. According to the GRADE assessment, the certainty of evidence was low for cleaning effectiveness and moderate for postoperative pain, primarily due to inconsistency and imprecision. The findings suggest that rotary instrumentation may offer advantages in obturation quality and postoperative comfort in primary teeth. However, the limited number of high-confidence SRMAs and heterogeneity in outcome reporting underscore the need for standardised research protocols in pediatric 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.