ArticleImaging science in dentistry2025
Assessment of the type and length of separated endodontic instruments in root-filled mandibular molars: A comparative study using digital periapical radiographs and CBCT.
Article in Imaging science in dentistry, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to compare the diagnostic performance of cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and digital periapical radiography in detecting separated endodontic instruments (SI) according to their type and length in filled root canals of mandibular molars. Materials and Methods: Forty-two extracted mandibular molars were divided into 2 groups: control (without SI) and experimental (with SI). In the experimental group, SI fragments (2 or 3 mm) from 3 endodontic instruments (WaveOne Gold, Reciproc Blue, and ProTaper Next) were inserted into the mesiobuccal canals of 30 teeth. CBCT scans were obtained using the KAVO OP 3D PRO device, and digital periapical radiographs (orthoradial, distal, and mesial) were acquired using the Focus X-ray unit with the RVG 5200 solid sensor. Three experts independently evaluated all images for SI detection using a 5-point scale. Diagnostic performance metrics were calculated for each imaging method, and comparisons were performed using 1-way analysis of variance with Tukey post-hoc tests. The significance level was set at 5% ( Results: Digital periapical radiography demonstrated higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (Az), sensitivity, and specificity values than CBCT. ProTaper Next SI on CBCT scans showed the lowest Az values (0.58 and 0.56 for 2- and 3-mm fragments, respectively). These values were significantly different from those of the other SI conditions (both CBCT and digital periapical radiography) ( Conclusion: Digital periapical radiography outperformed CBCT in detecting SI in filled root canals of mandibular molars and should be the preferred modality. Furthermore, SI detectability varies with imaging modality, depending on instrument type and fragment length.
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.