Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40787138›Full record

ReviewJournal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine2025

Effect of working length determination methods on postoperative pain after root canal treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Gaurav Kumar, Sumit Mohan, Butta Viswanath, Harsh Priyank

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of dental anesthesia and pain medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Gaurav KumarDental Institute, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1814-6027
Sumit MohanDental Institute, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4492-1875
Butta ViswanathDental Institute, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-8578-5654
Harsh PriyankDental Institute, Rajendra Institute of Medical Sciences, Ranchi, Jharkhand, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-0457-2159

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This systematic review aimed to assess the effect of various working length determination methods on the incidence of postoperative pain after root canal treatment. A comprehensive literature search was conducted across three electronic databases to identify randomized clinical trials. Two reviewers independently screened the articles, extracted relevant data, and assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane risk-of-bias assessment tool. For quantitative synthesis, a random-effects model was employed to compute the pooled mean difference by comparing the simultaneous and separate working-length determination methods. Sensitivity analyses were conducted after excluding studies that contributed disproportionately to overall heterogeneity. Seven studies met the criteria for qualitative review and three were included in the meta-analysis. The findings suggest that simultaneous determination of working length using integrated electronic apex locators may offer an advantage in reducing postoperative pain. However, this interpretation is limited by the substantial heterogeneity observed across the included studies. This review highlights the necessity for robust and well-designed clinical trials with large sample sizes and standardized protocols to obtain conclusive evidence.

Indexed as

Electronic Apex LocatorsEndodonticsMeta-AnalysisPainRoot Canal TherapyWorking Length

Identifiers

PMID40787138
PMCPMC12328130

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.