ArticleInternational endodontic journal2026
Micro-Computed Tomographic Evaluation of Shaping Ability by Novice Dental Students and Their Preference of Nikel-Titanium File; Rotation Versus Reciprocation System.
Article in International endodontic journal, 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
Abstract
aimNickel-titanium (NiTi) rotary instruments have helped clinicians in enhancing canal preparation, with two different kinematic systems employing either reciprocating or rotary motion. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of this kinematics on canal transportation and centering ratios when used by novice dental students and their preference after use. METHODOLOGY: Forty-two mesial canals of 3D-printed mandibular first molars were instrumented by 21 sophomore dental students. Students were randomly assigned to instrument both mesiobuccal (MB) and mesiolingual (ML) canals using either ProTaper Gold (PTG) or WaveOne Gold (WOG) while measuring instrumentation time. Micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) scans were taken before and after instrumentation. Canal transportation and centering ratios were calculated at apical, middle and coronal levels. A questionnaire was completed after instrumentation regarding students' perception with 5-point Likert scale: ease of use, flexibility, cutting efficiency, screwing effect, overall impression and their preferred file. Canal transportation and centering ratios were compared using paired t-tests. Data from the questionnaire were analysed using the Pearson chi-square test and independent t-tests. The statistical significance level was set at p < 0.05.
resultsPTG showed significantly more canal transportation than WOG in both apical and middle thirds of the ML canals (p < 0.05). The centering ratios of WOG were also significantly higher at the apical and middle thirds of ML canal but lower at the apical thirds of MB canal. The time for WOG instrumentation was shorter than for PTG (218 ± 83.6 vs. 446.6 ± 231.4 s, p < 0.05). WOG had significantly higher scores in the categories of 'ease of use', 'screwing effect' and 'overall impression' (p < 0.05) than those of PTG. 19/21 students (90.48%) preferred WOG to PTG.
conclusionsThe reciprocation system was preferred in aggregate over the rotation system by novice dental students and showed less canal transportation and better centering ability with shorter instrumentation time.
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.