ArticleCureus2026
Combined Effects of Instrumentation Geometry and Sealer Type on Mandibular Premolar Root Fracture Resistance.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of different root canal preparation parameters (file size and taper) and sealer types on the fracture resistance of endodontically treated mandibular premolar roots. Methods Ninety extracted single-rooted mandibular premolars were randomly assigned to eight experimental groups (n = 10 per group) and one control group (n = 10). Experimental groups were prepared using FKG RACE EVO nickel-titanium rotary files with sizes 25 or 30 and tapers of 0.04 or 0.06 and obturated using a single-cone technique with either TotalFill BC Sealer (bioceramic) or AH Plus (epoxy resin-based). Control specimens remained untreated. After seven days of storage at 37°C and 100% humidity, fracture resistance was measured using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min until fracture occurred. Data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests, with statistical significance set at α = 0.05. Results No statistically significant differences were found among the eight experimental groups (χ² = 11.64, df = 8, p = 0.076, η² = 0.045), although a small effect size was observed. Consistent trends were noted: bioceramic sealer groups demonstrated 10.7% higher mean fracture resistance (420.13 N; 89.8% of control) compared with epoxy resin-based groups (379.42 N; 81.2% of control). Size 25 preparations showed an 8.5% advantage (416.06 N; 89.0% of control) over size 30 (383.50 N; 82.0% of control), and 0.04 taper showed a 6.0% advantage (411.51 N; 88.0% of control) over 0.06 taper (388.04 N; 83.0% of control). The weakest group retained 67.7% of the control strength (316.35 N vs 467.58 N). High within-group variability (CV: 14-42%) likely precluded detection of statistical significance. Conclusions Within the limitations of this study, preparation parameters and sealer type did not produce statistically significant differences in fracture resistance. However, consistent directional trends favoring smaller preparations and bioceramic sealers suggest potential clinical relevance. These findings support the principles of minimally invasive endodontics.
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.