ArticleCureus2026
A Split-Mouth Design Comparison of Guided and Conventional Endodontic Treatments in Calcified Lower Incisors: An In Vivo Pilot Study.
Article in Cureus, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Pulp calcification and pulp canal obliteration: from biological mechanisms to contemporary clinical management and digital navigation.The Saudi dental journal · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis in vivo pilot study aimed to compare the conventional endodontic technique (CET) to the guided endodontic technique (GET) in lower calcified incisors by focusing on the detection of root canals, the amount of dental substance loss, and treatment duration.
methodsSeven patients with two calcified lower incisors with a single canal requiring root canal treatment were selected. For each patient, one incisor underwent CET, and the contralateral incisor underwent GET using a customized sleeve. The intracanal space was volumetrically measured using the indirect post-core technique for comparison. The duration was recorded from the start of the treatment until the root canal orifice was detected. Statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics (version 25.0; IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA), employing the Wilcoxon signed-rank test (p < 0.05).
resultsFor the 14 treated teeth, the calcification level was presented at the third middle part of the root canal. All 14 teeth had negotiable canals except one, which was treated using the CET. The CET presented a significantly higher intracanal volume (7.8 ± 3.3 mm
conclusionGET offers a more predictable and efficient treatment for calcified lower incisors than CET, with significantly less substance loss and shorter treatment duration.
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.