Efficacy, precision and ease of 3D-printed versus conventional endodontic instruments compared to conventional stainless steel and nickel-titanium files in root canal preparation.

Ishika Chatterjee, Supriya Patil, Prachi Joshi, Debkant Jena, Maneesha Das, Amrutha Sathianath

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformation, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Ishika ChatterjeeDepartment of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, Kalinga Institute of Dental sciences, KIIT University, Patia, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.

Supriya PatilDepartment of conservative and Endodontics, H.K.E's, S Nijalingappa Institute of Dental sciences and Research, Kalaburgi, Karnataka, India.

Prachi JoshiDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Ajeenkya D.Y.Patil Dental School, Pune, Maharashtra, India.

Debkant JenaDepartment of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, Kalinga Institute of Dental sciences, KIIT University, Patia, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.

Maneesha DasDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Institute of Dental Sciences, Siksha 'O' Anusandhan deemed to be University, Kalinga Nagar, Bhubaneswar-751003, Odisha, India.

Amrutha SathianathDepartment of Conservation Dentistry and endodontist, KMCT Dental College Campus, Mukkam, Manassery, Kerala, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The performance of 3D-printed endodontic instruments against traditional stainless steel and NiTi files in root canal preparation. Hence, a total of 135 patients requiring single-rooted canal treatment were enrolled and randomized into three groups. Parameters assessed included canal shaping efficacy, procedural accuracy and operator handling comfort. 3D-printed instruments demonstrated comparable shaping efficiency and significantly improved precision and ease of use. These findings suggest promising potential for 3D-printed tools in clinical endodontics.

Indexed as

3D-printed endodontic filesendodontic instrumentationNiTi filesroot canal preparationstainless steel files

Identifiers

PMID41466657

DOI10.6026/973206300213031

PMCPMC12744497

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.