ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025
Comparative Evaluation of Centering Ability and Canal Transportation Using Manual and Rotary Instruments - 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Endodontic success relies heavily on the accurate shaping and cleaning of root canals, especially in curved canals where procedural errors like canal transportation can occur. Instrument design, alloy flexibility, and taper significantly influence canal shaping outcomes. Materials and Methods: A total of 102 extracted mandibular molars with uncalcified, noncarious mesiobuccal canals were selected. Teeth were divided into three groups: Group I (K-file), Group II (NeoEndo S rotary), and Group III (GenEndo rotary). After access cavity preparation and initial glide path formation, root canals were prepared to size 25/02 (manual) and 25/04 (rotary). Cone beam computed tomography scans were performed pre- and postinstrumentation at 2, 4, and 6 mm from the apex to assess canal transportation and centering ability using standard formulas. Results: Group I (K-files) showed minimal mesiobuccal (MB) transportation at 2 mm (0.01 ± 0.22 mm) and the highest centering ratio at 2 mm (0.62 ± 0.85). Group II (NeoEndo S) had the highest transportation at 2 mm (MB: [0.10 ± 0.35 mm], DL: [0.51 ± 1.30 mm]) and the lowest centering ability (0.13 ± 1.75). At 4 mm, NeoEndo S again showed maximum transportation ([0.06 ± 0.35] MB, [0.53 ± 0.93] DL) compared to GenEndo and K-files. At 6 mm, Group III (GenEndo) showed greater MB transportation (0.31 ± 0.54 mm) and the lowest centering ability (0.01 ± 0.83). ANOVA revealed no significant differences for MB and DL transportation ( Conclusion: All tested instruments caused some degree of canal transportation. GenEndo files demonstrated better centering ability and less canal deviation compared to NeoEndo S and K-files, attributed to their design and alloy properties.
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.