ArticleOdontology2026
Supplementary instrumentation did not enhance the removal of residual gutta-percha: a micro-computed tomography study.
Article in Odontology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
We evaluated the effect of supplementary instrumentation on the removal of gutta-percha and compared the efficacy of three file systems with different metallurgical properties via micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). Forty-two moderately curved mandibular molars were selected and divided into 3 groups (n = 14): group-PTG: ProTaper Gold, group-PTN: ProTaper Next, and group-VB: Vortex Blue. Only mesial roots with Vertucci type-IV configuration were included. Canals were instrumented and obturated with bioceramic sealer. Retreatment was performed using a retreatment file system, and supplementary instrumentation was completed according to experimental groups: ProTaper Next X4 (40/06), ProTaper Gold 40/06, and Vortex Blue 40/06. Initial, second (after using the retreatment file system), and final (after supplementary instrumentation) micro-CTs were obtained (resolution 85 kV, 118 µA, and 13.6 µA pixel size), and residual gutta-percha at apical, middle, and coronal thirds was calculated. One-way ANOVA and Student's t test were performed for statistical analysis. While the first and second micro-CT values demonstrated a statistical difference (p < 0.05), there was no difference between the second and final micro-CT values. No differences were detected between group-PTN (96.89-98.32%), group-PTG (95.36-98.51%), and group-VB (%96.96-%99.38). Residual gutta-percha volumes were similar in mesiobuccal and mesiolingual canals. Supplementary instrumentation did not decrease the amount of residual gutta-percha. Increasing the initial apical size by three sizes removed 98.18% to 99.38% of gutta-percha. ProTaper Next, ProTaper Gold, and Vortex Blue showed similar effects. In the apical third of mesiobuccal, ProTaper Gold and Vortex Blue eliminated gutta-percha more effectively than ProTaper Next.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41276710What 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.