ArticleBMC oral health2026
Efficiency of ultrasonic retrieval for separated instruments within the middle third of root canals using modified staging platform: a comparative in-vitro study.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study aimed to compare the efficiency of ultrasonic retrieval using a Modified Staging Platform (MSP) versus a Conventional Staging Platform (CSP) for 3, 5, and 7 mm separated NiTi instrument fragments in moderately curved mesiobuccal canals of mandibular molars, by assessing retrieval time, success rate, and vertical root fracture resistance, with loop intervention for unretrieved fragments. METHODOLOGY: Seventy-seven extracted mandibular first molars were prepared and allocated randomly into 2 main groups (CSP, MSP; n = 33 each) and one control group (n = 11). Each main group was subdivided into 3 subgroups (n = 11) according to separated fragment-length (3, 5, 7 mm). NiTi rotary instruments were separated in mesiobuccal canals, and retrieval was attempted under dental operating microscope (DOM) using CSP or MSP corresponding to the allocated group. Retrieval time and success rate (maximum 45 min) were recorded for each case. Failed samples underwent loop retrieval (15 min). Following retrieval procedures, mesial roots were sectioned and decoronated to a standardized root length (15 mm), for vertical fracture testing using a universal testing machine. Nonparametric tests (Mann–Whitney U and Kruskal–Wallis with Dunn post hoc) were applied (α = 0.05).
resultsFor 3 mm fragments, MSP yielded significantly shorter ultrasonic retrieval time than CSP (p < 0.001). For 5 mm fragments, CSP was faster than MSP (p = 0.002). Neither technique retrieved 7 mm fragments ultrasonically. Loop retrieval succeeded in 90.9% of 7 mm fragments for CSP but failed for MSP (p < 0.001). Both retrieval methods showed significantly lower fracture resistance than controls (p < 0.001); no significant difference in fracture resistance was found between MSP and CSP groups.
conclusionMSP was more time-efficient than CSP for short (3 mm) fragments, whereas CSP performed better for 5 mm fragments and permitted successful loop-assisted removal of long (7 mm) fragments. Both techniques significantly reduced vertical root fracture resistance relative to intact controls.
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.