ArticleHead & face medicine2026
The influence of different access cavity designs and root canal sealers on the fracture resistance of extracted mandibular incisors.
Article in Head & face medicine, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo investigate the influence of endodontic access cavity designs and root canal sealers on extracted mandibular incisors’ fracture resistance (FR) after 6 months of ageing.
methodsFifty mandibular incisors with similar dimensions and root lengths were collected and randomly divided into five groups (n = 10) based on endodontic access cavity: traditional access cavity (TAC) or minimally invasive access cavity (MIAC) and root canal sealers (AH Plus or NeoSealer Flo) with an intact tooth as control group. The teeth underwent FR testing after root canal filling and composite resin restoration. Statistical analysis was performed using the Shapiro-Wilk, one-way ANOVA, and post hoc Tukey tests with the significance level set at 0.05.
resultsThe control group exhibited the highest FR (434.60 ± 80.65 N). Significant differences were observed between the control and all experimental groups (p < 0.001 for TAC/AH Plus, and TAC/NeoSealer Flo, p = 0.002 for MIAC/AH Plus, and p = 0.001 for MIAC/NeoSealer Flo). The mean values for the experimental groups were 309.62 ± 82.51 N (TAC/AH Plus), 281.75 ± 50.79 N (TAC/NeoSealer Flo), 320.85 ± 40.77 N (MIAC/AH Plus), and 313.91 ± 42.44 N (MIAC/NeoSealer Flo), with no significant differences among them (p > 0.05).
conclusionsNeither the shape of the endodontic access cavity nor the type of sealer affected the FR of extracted mandibular incisors after 6 months of ageing.
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.