Evaluating success rates of rotary NiTi versus reciprocating files in endodontic treatment.

Rutika Naik, Hiren Patel, Jayata Dhawan, Dipooja Patil, Monika Sharma, Priyanka Gupta, Miral Mehta

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Rutika NaikDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, S B Patil Institute of Dental Sciences and Research, Bidar, India.

Hiren PatelDepartment of Dentistry, Meharry School of Dentistry, Nashville, Tennessee, United States.

Jayata DhawanDepartment of Paediatric and Preventive Dentistry, MMCDSR, MULLANA, Ambala, Haryana, India.

Dipooja PatilDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University) Dental College and Hospital, Navi Mumbai, India.

Monika SharmaDepartment of Dentistry, Government medical college, Bharatpur, India.

Priyanka GuptaDepartment of Pediatric and Preventive dentistry, Swargiya Dadasaheb Kalmegh Smruti Dental College and Hospital, Nagpur, India.

Miral MehtaDepartment of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Karnavati School of Dentistry, Karnavati University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Optimal file system selection remains critical in endodontic practice for effective root canal preparation in teeth with apical periodontitis. Therefore, it is of interest to compare rotary NiTi (ProTaper Gold) versus reciprocating (WaveOne Gold) systems in 224 teeth over 18 months. Both achieved comparable success rates (87.5% rotary vs. 89.3% reciprocating, p=0.672), with similar periapical healing and symptom resolution. Reciprocating files demonstrated shorter treatment times and fewer separations, improving procedural efficiency and safety. This advances endodontics by validating reciprocating systems as equally effective yet more efficient alternatives to rotary NiTi in primary treatments.

Indexed as

Endodontic treatmentnickel-titanium filesperiapical healingreciprocating motionrotary instrumentationtreatment outcome

Identifiers

PMID42109403

DOI10.6026/973206300220658

PMCPMC13150286

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.