ArticleBMC oral health2026
Secondary retrieval and complication management for failed separated instrument removal in the apical third in curved root canals: a case series.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSeparated instruments in the apical third of the infected root canals can lead to persistent periapical lesions. Retrieval requires appropriate preoperative assessment and a skilled technique, especially in cases of separated instruments in the apical third of curved root canals. Otherwise, retrieval will lead to removal failure and concomitant complications. CASE PRESENTATION: Herein, we report two cases of separated instrument retrieval failure with complications due to inadequate preoperative assessment and an incorrect technical approach. In these cases, we re-evaluated the feasibility of the secondary separated instrument retrieval, including the root canal curvature, type and length of instruments, and thickness of the root canal wall inside the curvature and around the top of the separated instrument. In addition, we describe the technical approach for determining the clasping zone of the separated instrument.
conclusionsThese cases suggest that preoperative evaluation and correct technical approach are crucial. Preventing complications is easier and more important than their management. Once removal fails, it becomes more complex and risky to remove the separated instruments. This case series offers insights into how to manage secondary retrieval, demonstrating the appropriate preoperative reassessment and technical approach.
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.