ArticleBrazilian oral research2025
Root canal instrumentation of artificial primary teeth with rotary and reciprocating files: a micro-CT analysis.
Article in Brazilian oral research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating success rates of rotary NiTi versus reciprocating files in endodontic treatment.Bioinformation · 2026Article
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
This study compared the outcomes of two endodontic instrumentation protocols (rotary or reciprocating files), using artificial primary teeth and micro-computed tomography. Twenty-four artificial primary molars were equally distributed into two groups of 12, according to the type of instrumentation - rotary files (Sequence Baby NiTi Files©) or reciprocating files (X1-Blue File NiTi files©). The following parameters were evaluated: root canal and dentin volumes, canal transportation and centering ability, risk of root perforation, and time of instrumentation. Statistically significant differences between the two instrumentation protocols considering root canal transportation and centering ability were identified. There was no difference in dentin thickness, fractures, and cracks comparing preoperative and postoperative time points for both endodontic files. Although the time of instrumentation was shorter for reciprocating files, rotary files promoted smaller root canal enlargement. Instrumentation with reciprocating and rotary files proved generally safe for pulpectomy in primary molars, promoting a negligible reduction in dentin volume, canal transportation, and centering ability, thereby preserving dentin thickness and lowering the risk of fractures.
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.