ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Minimally invasive versus conventional apical enlargement during retreatment of severely curved mesial canals: A micro-CT study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
objectivesThis study used micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) to compare a minimally invasive retreatment approach (reinstrumentation 30/0.04) with a conventional retreatment protocol (reinstrumentation 40/0.04) during different stages of filling removal in curved mesial roots of mandibular molars. MATERIALS AND
methodsFourteen extracted mandibular first molars with Vertucci type IV and severe curvature (25°-40°) were selected, endodontically prepared (25/0.04), and obturated. A paired intra-root design compared minimally invasive retreatment (D-Race + iRace to 30/0.04) with a conventional protocol (Mtwo to 40/0.04). Retreatments were performed without solvents, and micro-CT scans were taken at three stages. Residual filling material was quantified and analyzed at a 5% significance level.
resultsInitial filling volumes were similar between protocols (P > .05). After desobstruction, the minimally invasive protocol removed more material (P < .01), leaving 0.2 mm³ (95%) versus 1.1 mm³ (70%). However, after reinstrumentation, no significant differences were observed (P > .05), with both protocols achieving high removal rates (98% vs. 95%).
conclusionThe minimally invasive protocol showed greater efficiency in the initial removal of obturation material. After final reinstrumentation, both approaches achieved similar outcomes, with < 5% residual material. These findings suggest that conservative enlargement to 30/0.04 may be as effective as 40/0.04 while better preserving radicular dentin. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Extensive apical enlargement (40/0.04) is not essential for effective removal of obturation material in severely curved canals. A conservative approach (30/0.04) achieves similar cleanliness while better preserving radicular dentin and structural 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.