ArticleEuropean endodontic journal2025
Comparison of the Canal Transportation and Centering Ability of TruNatomy, WaveOne Gold and Protaper Ultimate: An Ex Vivo Study in Human Maxillary Molars.
Article in European endodontic journal, 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
Abstract
objectiveEffective disinfection and preservation of the root canal anatomy are critical goals in modern endodontics. Nickel-titanium (NiTi) instruments have enhanced canal shaping by offering flexibility and improved performance, particularly in complex anatomies. WaveOne Gold (WOG), TruNatomy (TN), and ProTaper Ultimate (PU) are widely used NiTi systems with distinct designs, properties, and kinematics, but limited data exist comparing their canal transportation and centering ability, especially for PU. The objective of this study was to assess and compare the shaping performance of WOG, TN, and PU in the mesiobuccal (MB) canals of maxillary molars. The null hypothesis was that no significant differences would be found in canal transportation or centering ability.
methodsForty-two extracted human maxillary molars with curved MB canals (25�����40��) were allocated into three groups (n=14) and instrumented using WOG, TN, or PU systems. Microcomputed tomography (��CT) scans were acquired before and after instrumentation to assess both centering ability and canal transportation at distances of 3 mm, 5 mm, and 7 mm from the apical foramen. A one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test were used for data analysis (p<0.05).
resultsNo significant differences were observed among the three systems regarding the overall mean transportation or at any specific level; however, distinct transportation tendencies were identified. Furthermore, the tested file systems showed no statistically significant differences in centering ability.
conclusionWOG, TN, and PU demonstrated comparable shaping abilities, with no significant differences found in their capacity to preserve canal anatomy within clinical standards. (eej-2025-07-108).
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.