ArticleCureus2026
Apical Third Cleaning Efficiency of Hand, Rotary, and Reciprocating Root Canal Instrumentation: A Quantitative In Vitro Scanning Electron Microscopic Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis in vitro study quantitatively evaluated the cleaning efficiency of hand, rotary, and reciprocating instrumentation systems in the apical third of root canals using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty extracted single-rooted human premolars with single canals were randomly assigned to three groups (n = 20 each): Group I: hand instrumentation using stainless steel K‑files; Group II: rotary preparation with ProTaper Next (Dentsply Maillefer, USA); and Group III: reciprocating shaping using WaveOne Gold (Dentsply Sirona, USA). Instrumentation protocols were standardized in working length, irrigation sequence (3% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA)), and drying. Following preparation, roots were grooved, split longitudinally, gold sputter-coated, and examined under SEM (×1500) for quantitative assessment of the apical third using ImageJ software (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA). Smear layer, pulpal debris, and inorganic debris were scored on a four-point scale. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (α = 0.05).
resultsHand instrumentation showed significantly lower mean scores for smear layer (3.00 ± 0.92), pulpal debris (2.40 ± 0.50), and inorganic debris (2.60 ± 0.50) compared to rotary and reciprocating systems (p < 0.001). No statistical difference was observed between the rotary and reciprocating groups across evaluated parameters (p > 0.05).
conclusionWithin the limitations of this study, hand instrumentation with stainless steel K‑files achieved superior apical cleanliness compared to ProTaper Next and WaveOne Gold systems. The effective scraping and debris dislodgment capability of hand files contributed to enhanced smear layer and debris removal in the apical third, underscoring their clinical relevance in achieving improved disinfection in complex canal anatomies.
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.