ArticleBMC oral health2026
Influence of access cavity design on instrumentation efficiency in 3D-printed replicas of mandibular incisors with Vertucci Type III canals.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo assess the impact of access cavity design on instrumentation effectiveness in three-dimensional (3D)-printed mandibular incisors with Vertucci Type III canal configuration.
methodsTwo extracted mandibular incisors with Vertucci Type III anatomy, which presented contrasting morphologies (a spacious canal system with isthmuses in Specimen 1 versus a restricted morphology without in Specimen 2), were replicated via 3D printing. This process yielded 48 resin replicas per specimen (total n = 96), evenly distributed into six groups (n = 8 per group). Each group underwent instrumentation with either WaveOne Gold (WOG) or ProTaper Next (PTN) nickel-titanium (NiTi) systems via one of three access approaches: traditional lingual (TLAC), incisal ridge (IAC), or labial (LaAC). Pre- and post-instrumentation micro-computed tomographic scans were analyzed for iatrogenic errors, canal volume/surface area changes, unprepared areas, and apical diameter. Data were statistically evaluated using three-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with LSD post hoc test, with the significance level set at p < 0.05.
resultsCanal straightening occurred only in the LaAC and IAC groups (9 cases each), whereas apical perforations (22 cases) were exclusive to Specimen 2 replicas. Three-way ANOVA revealed that percentage increases in canal volume and surface area, proportion of unprepared area, and maximum apical diameter following instrumentation were all significantly affected by tooth prototype (all p < 0.001), accessing cavity design (all p < 0.01), and the instrument used (all p < 0.01). In Specimen 1 replicas (spacious canals), PTN with TLAC resulted in a lower proportion of unprepared areas than PTN with LaAC (36.7% ± 8.9% vs. 47.6% ± 7.8%; p < 0.05); however, both techniques preparing only one canal. In contrast, PTN with IAC prepared both canals and achieved the most complete preparation (18.8% ± 3.2% unprepared, p < 0.05). The use of WOG significantly improved outcomes in the LaAC group, reducing unprepared areas to 13.9% ± 4.8% (p < 0.05). Similar trends emerged in Specimen 2 replicas, though the narrower anatomy increased procedural difficulty. WOG consistently outperformed PTN: IAC prepared both canals in all cases (8/8), while LaAC succeeded in 87.5% (7/8). Unprepared surfaces were significantly lower with IAC (8.0% ± 5.5%) and LaAC (9.3% ± 8.2%) than with TLAC (34.2% ± 5.1%; both p < 0.01).
conclusionsIAC demonstrated superior efficacy for instrumentation of mandibular incisors with Vertucci Type III canals compared to TLAC and LaAC. WOG enhanced LaAC performance and surpassed PTN overall. Access design and instrument selection critically influence procedural success.
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.