ArticleActa odontologica latinoamericana : AOL2025
Effect of mechanized instrumentation on distal wall thickness of the second mesiobuccal canal.
Article in Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Dentine wall thickness in the mesial roots of molars is critical to prevent root stripping. Understanding the effect of rotatory instruments on the second mesiobuccal canal is crucial to prevent weakening and periodontal communication.
aimTo evaluate the effect of different conservative tapered mechanized instrumentation systems on the distal wall thickness of the second mesiobuccal canal of maxillary first molars in 3D dental replicas. MATERIALS AND
methodFifty radiopaque 3D printed replicas were made of a maxillary first molar with Vertucci classification IV and Schneider curvature (<10°), 23 mm in length. The specimens were divided into 5 groups of 10. In all cases, the second mesiobuccal canal was instrumented to the working length. Group 1 was instrumented with Race Evo (FKG) up to file 30/04, Group 2 with AF F One (Fanta-Dental) up to file 35/04, Group 3 with Slim Shaper (Zarc4Endo) up to file 30/04, and Group 4 with Trunatomy, while the control group was not instrumented. Distal wall thicknesses were measured in the cervical, middle and apical thirds by CBCT before and after instrumentation. Descriptive statistics were calculated, after which analysis of variance and Tukey's test for multiple comparisons were performed (p < 0.05).
resultsAnalysis of variance showed a significant effect of instrumented group and thirds (p < 0.001). The multiple comparison test showed that the control and Race Evo groups differed significantly from the other three groups. Within each group, the differences between thirds were statistically significant.
conclusionTrunatomy, Slim Shaper and Fanta AF One systems are suitable for shaping second mesiobuccal canals while maintaining critical distal wall thickness.
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.