ArticleBMC oral health2025
Novel electromagnetic device to retrieve fractured stainless steel endodontic files: an in-vitro investigation.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFractured endodontic files hinder root canal treatment. This study aimed to assess the retrieval of fractured stainless-steel (SS) endodontic files from different thirds of root canals using a novel electromagnetic device and compare its effectiveness to the ultrasonic Terauchi File Removal Kit (TFRK).
methods180 decoronated single-rooted anterior teeth were divided into four experimental groups (A–D) and one control group (n = 36 each). SS K-files size 15 were fractured in groups A and C, and size 25 in groups B and D at various canal levels. Retrieval in groups A and B used an electromagnetic device; groups C and D used TFRK. In the control group, size 15 Nickel-titanium K-files were used. Retrieval success rates were compared using the Chi-square test, while retrieval times were analyzed using Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) and Tukey’s HSD post hoc test (P ≤ 0.05).
resultsElectromagnetic device retrieved all files from the coronal third, while lower rates were noted in the middle and apical thirds. The TFRK retrieved all files in the coronal and middle thirds, with fewer retrieved apically. When comparing the two devices, the TFRK demonstrated significantly higher retrieval rates than the electromagnetic device in both the middle third (P = 0.010) and the apical third (P = 0.018). Retrieval times ranged from 2.81 to 11.76 mins for the electromagnetic device and 1–5.72 mins for TFRK, increasing with canal depth. TFRK was faster apically, though overall time differences were not significant. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed significant differences in retrieval times among groups, confirmed by the Tukey HSD post hoc test.
conclusionsAlthough the electromagnetic device was comparable in removing SS files from coronal third within optimal time, TFRK remains more clinically viable for middle/apical retrievals.
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.