ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Shaping efficiency versus dentin conservation: a micro-CT taper-based analysis.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the influence of instruments with identical tip diameters but increasing taper on shaping efficiency and dentin preservation in the root canals of mandibular molars using micro-CT. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwelve extracted mandibular molars with Vertucci Type III mesial canals and Type I distal canals were scanned using micro-CT before and after each instrumentation step. Mesial canals were sequentially prepared with 25/0.03, 25/0.05, 25/0.06, and 25/.08v instruments, whereas distal canals were prepared with 40/0.03, 40/0.05, and 40/.06v instruments. Co-registered datasets were used to quantify canal volume, surface area, percentage of unprepared canal surface, dentin removal, and minimum dentin thickness. In addition, dentin thickness values were categorized according to clinically relevant thresholds (< 0.5 mm, 0.5-1.0 mm, and > 1.0 mm). Data were analyzed using generalized linear and mixed-effects models (α = 0.05).
resultsIn mesial canals, unprepared area decreased significantly with larger tapers; reductions were significant with 25/0.06 (-21.9%) and 25/.08v (-37.9%), but not with 25/0.05. Dentin removal increased markedly and progressively with taper, reaching ~ 350% with 25/.08v compared with 25/0.03 (p < 0.001). In distal canals, taper did not significantly affect the unprepared area; however, dentin removal increased significantly with 40/0.05 and 40/.06v. Directional analyses confirmed a stepwise increase in dentin reduction, following the pattern mesiobuccal > mesiolingual > distal at all levels. Threshold analysis showed that the proportion of dentin thickness measurements within the 0.5-1.0 mm range increased with larger tapers, particularly on the distal aspect of the mesial roots.
conclusionsIncreasing instrument taper improves shaping efficiency in mesial canals but substantially increases dentin removal and shifts dentin thickness toward potentially vulnerable ranges. Conservative taper selection may therefore better balance shaping effectiveness and structural preservation in mandibular molars. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Larger tapers may improve canal wall contact but can substantially reduce dentin thickness in anatomically vulnerable regions, emphasizing the importance of anatomy-guided taper selection during root canal preparation.
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.