ArticleBrazilian oral research2025
Effect of maintaining apical patency with a CM instrument on apical transportation and centering ability.
Article in Brazilian oral research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the impact of the apical patency technique on apical transportation and centering ability of a controlled memory (CM) instrument in the apical region using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Sixty distobuccal canals of extracted maxillary molars were assigned to three groups (n = 20) based on the patency length achieved using the Easy ProDesign Logic (EPL) 25.01 file: Group A - 1 mm beyond the apical foramen; Group B - at the apical foramen; and Group C - 1 mm short of the apical foramen (no patency). Each group was then subdivided into two subgroups (n = 10) according to the working length used for root canal preparation with the EPL 25.05 file: A1, B1, C1-I, and C1-II - 1 mm short of the apical foramen and A2, B2 - at the apical foramen. CBCT images were acquired at three time points: pre-patency, post-patency, and post-instrumentation. The scanned images were analyzed using the E-VOL DX software. No statistically significant difference in apical transportation was found between the groups after patency or after instrumentation (p < 0.05), irrespective of the measurement levels (0.5, 1, and 2 mm short of the apical foramen). A significant difference in the centering ability of the patency instrument was observed only at 2 mm short of the foramen (p < 0.05). The B2 group exhibited a higher centering ability, with a statistically significant difference compared to the A2 group (p < 0.05), observed only at 0.5 mm short of the foramen. In conclusion, maintenance of apical patency using the EPL instrument had no influence on apical transportation; however, it may slightly affect the centering ability of the root canal.
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.