ArticleOdontology2026
Remaining dentine thickness following post space preparation in maxillary and mandibular 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the effect of different post space drill diameters on remaining dentine thickness in maxillary and mandibular molars using high-resolution micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). Sixty molars (30 maxillary, 30 mandibular) with straight or slightly curved roots were allocated into homogeneous groups using pre-existing micro-CT datasets. Post spaces were prepared in the maxillary palatal and mandibular distal roots using Inod drills of three diameters (1.14, 1.25, and 1.55 mm; n = 10 per group). By superimposing pre- and post-preparation scans, the remaining dentine thickness was measured at 1-mm intervals apically from the furcal level (FL) in multiple directions. Data were analysed using ANOVA and post-hoc tests (α = 0.05). Maxillary molars generally retained ≥ 1 mm of dentine thickness across most surfaces and drill sizes, with buccal walls remaining consistently thicker than palatal ones. Only a single perforation occurred (buccal aspect, 1.55 mm group). Conversely, mandibular molars exhibited significantly thinner mesial walls compared to distal walls (p < .05), frequently resulting in postoperative thicknesses of ≤ 1 mm on the mesial surfaces. Furthermore, three perforations occurred on the mesial aspect with the 1.55 mm drill, whereas the distal walls generally maintained ≥ 1 mm thickness without perforations. Drill diameter significantly influences remaining dentine thickness in molar roots. The anatomical dimensions of palatal roots in maxillary molars permit post space preparation with a low risk of perforation, even with larger drills. However, highly conservative preparation or evidence-based post-free alternatives, such as endocrowns, are strongly recommended for mandibular molars.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42166023What 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.