ArticleScientific reports2026
Influence of endodontic access cavity design on root canal localization in mandibular first premolars using microscope and ultrasonic tips.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To identify the presence of a second canal in permanent mandibular first premolars treated on using conservative (CAC) and traditional endodontic access (TAC), aided by an operating microscope (OM) and ultrasonic tips. Seventy-two mandibular premolars were divided into two groups (n = 36): Group CAC and Group TAC. Canal localization was conducted initially without the OM, then with the OM, and finally with both the OM and ultrasonic tips. Statistical analyses included Cochran's Q-tests and binomial tests (α = 5%). There was no significant difference in second canal detection between CAC and TAC, whether assessed without magnification, with OM assistance, or with both OM and ultrasonic tips. Detection accuracy for the second canal significantly improved across the evaluation stages for both conservative and traditional access cavity groups, with Cochran's tests demonstrating a significant increase (CAC: p = 0.002, TAC: p = 0.049). There was no significant difference in second canal detection between CAC and TAC, whether assessed without magnification, with OM assistance, or with both OM and ultrasonic tips. Endodontists can choose the approach they prefer or that is most suitable for the clinical context, knowing that both techniques offer high reliability in detecting additional canals.
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.