ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2025
Microcracks after apicoectomy with three surgical instruments: A comparative scanning electron microscopy study.
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 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.
- Sample size calculation practices in original research articles of the Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics (2021-2025).Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dentinal microcracks during apicoectomy may be influenced by the instrument used for root-end resection and preparation. Recognizing instrument-related crack formation is important for safer microsurgical choices. Aims: To evaluate dentinal microcracks on root-end surfaces after resection with a tungsten carbide bur (TCB), a diamond-coated ultrasonic tip (DUT), and a surgical saw (SS), using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Materials and Methods: Sixty extracted single-rooted human canines were endodontically prepared and randomly allocated into three groups ( Statistical Analysis Used: Data were analyzed with SPSS 20.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA) using descriptive statistics and Chi-square tests. Odds ratios and logistic regression were applied to identify factors associated with the intervention. A significance level of α =0.05 and 95% confidence intervals were adopted. Results: Instrument type influenced crack formation. The SS produced the highest proportion of complete cracks, whereas the DUT produced the lowest. Differences between groups were statistically supported. Conclusions: The DUT may minimize dentinal microcracks compared with the SS. Appropriate instrument selection and standardized technique can help reduce structural damage during apicoectomy.
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.