ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025
Evaluation of Remaining Dentin Thickness and Comparison of Efficiencies of 3 Different Rotary File Systems Using CBCT Analysis: An
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and Objective: This study aims to compare the efficiency of three rotary file systems in preserving dentin thickness during endodontic procedures. By utilizing cone beam computed tomography, the study will assess remaining dentin thickness, analyze structural integrity, quantify dentin removal, identify performance differences, and provide recommendations for practitioners. Materials and Methods: Forty-five freshly extracted mandibular premolars were selected for this study. The teeth were randomly divided into three experimental groups, with fifteen teeth allocated to each group. The file systems being tested were: Group I - NeoEndo S, Group II-Hyflex EDM, and Group III-Protaper Gold. To ensure consistency, all canals were meticulously prepared using the designated file systems. Before and after instrumentation, the canals were assessed using CBCT imaging. This imaging technique enabled a detailed evaluation of remaining dentin thickness at three different levels along the canal. The data obtained from these measurements were then subjected to statistical analysis to determine the comparative performance of each file system. Results: Group III exhibited the highest mesiodistal dentin removal (mean = 0.26 ± 0.23), followed by Group I (mean = 0.21 ± 0.42) and then Group II (mean = 0.11 ± 0.41). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that the minimum reduction in dentin thickness during biomechanical preparation was observed with HyFlex EDM, followed by Neoendo S, with the maximum reduction seen with ProTaper Gold. A substantial difference was observed between all groups in terms of dentin removal, indicating the impact of rotary file design on the preservation of canal anatomy.
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.