ArticleMedicine2026
Assessment of canal centering and dentinal integrity following root canal preparation with different NiTi file systems: An in vitro CBCT and stereomicroscopic study.
Article in Medicine, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The success of root canal treatment largely depends on the canal shaping procedure, which influences subsequent steps, such as cleaning, obturation, and sealing. The present study aimed to evaluate the canal-centering ability, dentin removal, and dentinal crack incidence following root canal preparation with different rotary and reciprocating nickel-titanium file systems using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and a stereomicroscope. Forty freshly extracted single-rooted human mandibular premolars were selected and scanned preoperatively by CBCT (KAVO OP 3D Pro, Germany) to evaluate canal curvature. The samples were then randomly distributed into 4 groups (n = 10): Group 1 - ProTaper Next (continuous rotary), Group 2 - MicroMega One RECI (reciprocating), Group 3 - Race Evo (continuous rotary), and Group 4 - R-Motion (reciprocating). Root canals were prepared in accordance with the respective manufacturer's recommendations. Post-instrumentation CBCT scans were obtained to assess canal centering and remaining dentin thickness at 3, 6, and 9 mm from the apex. Root sections were also examined under a stereomicroscope to assess dentinal cracks. The MicroMega One RECI (Group 2) demonstrated superior canal centering, with mean ratios of 0.20 ± 0.05, 0.18 ± 0.04, and 0.17 ± 0.03 in the apical, middle, and coronal thirds, respectively. In contrast, ProTaper Next (Group 1) showed the highest centering ratio (0.35 ± 0.08 at 3 mm), indicating greater deviation from the canal axis. Reciprocating systems exhibited better dentin preservation and fewer dentinal cracks compared with continuous rotary systems. Based on observations from this in vitro study, it can be concluded that the variations in design of file systems and motion patterns critically determine the efficiency and safety of root canal shaping. Reciprocating and rotary motions show different effects on canal centering, dentin removal, crack propagation, and the preservation of root integrity.
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.