ArticleOdontology2026
Shaping ability of ProTaper Ultimate, ProTaper Gold, and Reciproc Blue in the mesiobuccal canals of maxillary first molars: a micro-computed tomography study.
Article in Odontology, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the shaping ability of ProTaper Ultimate, ProTaper Gold, and Reciproc Blue in the mesiobuccal canals of maxillary first molars using micro-computed tomography. Thirty extracted maxillary first molars with Vertucci Type IV configuration and curvatures between 10° and 20° were allocated into three groups (n = 10): ProTaper Ultimate, ProTaper Gold, and Reciproc Blue. All specimens underwent pre- and post-instrumentation micro-computed tomography scanning. Canal transportation, centering ratio, remaining dentin thickness, canal volume, and surface area were evaluated at predefined canal levels. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (α = 0.05). A significant difference was observed only at the 5 mm level of the MB1 canal, where Reciproc Blue showed a higher centering ratio than ProTaper Gold (p < .05). ProTaper Ultimate resulted in thinner remaining dentin in the furcation region compared with ProTaper Gold (p < .05), although all systems preserved more than 0.3 mm of dentin thickness. MB2 negotiation failures and instrument separation were most frequently observed in the ProTaper Gold group. Although localized differences were observed, all systems preserved canal anatomy with minimal transportation. Reciproc Blue demonstrated superior apical centering, whereas ProTaper Ultimate resulted in slightly thinner dentin in the mesial furcation area. This micro-computed tomography study provides comparative evidence on the shaping behavior of three heat-treated nickel-titanium systems in moderately curved mesiobuccal canals, and the observed differences in centering ability and dentin preservation may assist clinicians in selecting safer instrumentation strategies for complex molar anatomies.
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.