ArticleEuropean oral research2026
Evaluation of operator experience and nickel-titanium retreatment file systems in curved root canals.
Article in European oral research, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of operator experience and four different nickel-titanium (NiTi) retreatment systems in curved canals with respect to procedural time, complications, and file distortions during root canal filling removal. Materials and Methods: Root canal treatment was performed on 80 acrylic blocks with a 30° curvature. The blocks were assigned to either an endodontist or an endodontic resident (n = 40 each) and further divided into four subgroups (n = 10) according to the retreatment system used: ProTaper Universal Retreatment, ROGIN Retreatment Files, FANTA AF Retreatment Files, and EndoArt Retreatment Gold. Procedural time, complications (perforation, ledge formation, and apical transportation), and file distortions (unwinding, tip deformation, and instrument separation) were recorded. Results: The median procedural time for the endodontist (120 [95-142]) was significantly shorter than that for the resident (145 [117-162]) (p = 0.007). No statistically significant differences were observed between operators with regard to complications. The ProTaper Universal Retreatment system exhibited the lowest overall complication rates numerically. Additionally, both the FANTA AF Retreatment Files and the ProTaper Universal Retreatment system demonstrated a lower incidence of ledge formation when used by the resident; however, this difference did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion: The endodontist completed the procedures faster than the endodontic resident. The ProTaper Universal Retreatment system showed the lowest overall number of complications across both operators. The FANTA AF Retreatment Files demonstrated the lowest incidence of ledge formation, whereas EndoArt Retreatment Gold exhibited the highest incidence.
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.