ReviewCureus2025
Accuracy and Efficacy of a 3D Dynamic Navigation System for Endodontic Retreatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
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
The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate the accuracy of the dynamic navigation system (DNS) versus the freehand (FH) technique in nonsurgical endodontic retreatment, focusing on tooth structure loss, linear and angular deviations, iatrogenic errors, procedural time, and mishaps. Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, an extensive literature search was conducted across several major databases, including PubMed, Scopus, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Web of Science, covering all available records from each database's inception through August 2025. In addition, a search of the open gray literature was conducted, and relevant studies were identified through hand searching, yielding a total of 2,154 articles. After screening, 10 studies were included that compared DNS and FH in nonsurgical endodontic retreatment procedures, such as post space preparation and post removal. Among these, two studies focused on post space preparation, five on post removal, one on second mesiobuccal canal location, one on file retrieval, and one was a case report. The Quality Assessment Tool for In Vitro Studies (QUIN tool) was used to evaluate bias, indicating a moderate overall risk. Meta-analysis was performed on five studies: two on post space preparation and three on post removal. The DNS significantly reduced procedural time compared to the FH technique in both applications (p < 0.00001), although heterogeneity was high (I² = 95% and 59%, respectively). Compared to FH, DNS demonstrated better accuracy with less angular deviation (p < 0.0001 and p = 0.83; I² = 94% and 0%), coronal deviation (p = 0.06 and p = 0.12; I² = 72% and 59%), and apical deviation (p < 0.02 and p = 0.55; I² = 81% and 0%).
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.