ArticleOdontology2026
Effect of different restorative approaches and broken instrument removal techniques on the fracture resistance of root canal-treated teeth: an in vitro study.
Article in Odontology, 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
This study aimed to evaluate the effect of three different restorations-a prefabricated glass-fiber post and zirconia crown (PGF/Zc), a polyethylene woven-fiber post and zirconia crown (PWF/Zc), or a zirconia endocrown (ZE)-on the fracture resistance of teeth after broken file removal using either an ultrasonic or a micro-retrieve and repair (MR&R) system. Ninety mandibular premolar root canals were instrumented. Endodontic rotary files were intentionally fractured in the middle third of 80 teeth. Ten teeth served as a positive-control group. The broken fragments were removed from the 80 teeth and divided into two main groups: ultrasonic and MR&R. The removal times and the amount of dentin loss were measured. Following removal and single-cone obturation, the teeth were divided into four subgroups (n = 10 per group): PGF/Zc, PWF/Zc, ZE, and a negative control. All zirconia restorations were cemented with a dual-curing cement. Fracture resistance was measured using a universal testing machine with force applied at a 45° angle. Statistical analysis used the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis test with (α = 5%). No significant differences were observed between the two removal methods for file removal time or weight loss (p > 0.05). The fracture resistance was numerically higher in the ultrasonic group; however, this difference was not statistically significant compared to the MR&R group (p = 0.317). Among the restored groups, ZE restorations consistently provided higher fracture resistance than PGF/Zc or PWF/Zc restorations (p = 0.035). Notably, PGF/Zc exhibited the lowest resistance in MR&R-treated samples. The zirconia endocrown (ZE) was the structurally superior restorative choice across all groups following fractured instrument removal.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41649769What 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.