ArticleCurrent medical science2026
Reciproc and XP-endo Shaper Outperform WaveOne Gold in Apical Debris Removal: A Micro-CT Study in 3D-Printed Molars.
Article in Current medical science, 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
Abstract
objectiveComplete removal of filling material from complex anatomies such as the mesiobuccal isthmus remains a challenge in endodontic retreatment. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of XP-endo Shaper (XPS), Reciproc (REC), and WaveOne Gold (WOG) in removing root canal filling material during the retreatment of 3D-printed maxillary first molars, as quantified by micro-CT.
methodsFifteen standardized 3D-printed resin teeth with Vertucci type II mesiobuccal canals were prepared, obturated, and randomly assigned to retreatment using XPS, REC, or WOG (n = 5 per group). Micro-CT scans were acquired before and after retreatment to analyze residual filling material volume in the coronal, middle, and apical thirds. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal‒Wallis H test with post hoc Mann‒Whitney U tests (Bonferroni corrected).
resultsWhile all the systems achieved near-complete coronal debridement (> 97%), REC demonstrated significantly greater removal in the middle third (99% ± 1% vs. 97% WOG and 94% XPS; P < 0.05). Crucially, in the apical isthmus region, both XPS (95% ± 3%) and REC (90% ± 7%) significantly outperformed WOG (76% ± 3%) (P < 0.05). No significant difference was detected between XPS and REC in the apical third.
conclusionResidual filling material persisted in all the samples. REC showed the highest overall efficiency, whereas XPS achieved comparable apical debridement to REC. These quantitative, region-specific findings support the preferential use of XPS or REC over WOG for retreatment cases involving complex apical anatomy or isthmus configurations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42207399What 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.