ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2026
Dentinal loss and cleaning efficiency of retreatment files with irrigation activation: An
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 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
Aim: This study aimed to compare dentinal loss during retreatment using ProTaper Universal retreatment file versus NeoEndo retreatment file systems via cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). In addition, it evaluated the efficacy of conventional needle irrigation, passive ultrasonic-activated irrigation (PUI), and laser-activated irrigation (LAI) in removing bioceramic sealer, utilizing both CBCT and SEM analysis. Subjects and Methods: Sixty mandibular premolars were obturated with bioceramic sealer, retreated using ProTaper Universal and NeoEndo systems, followed by irrigation activation techniques (conventional, ultrasonic, and Er:YAG laser). Dentinal loss was assessed via CBCT, and bioceramic sealer removal was evaluated via scanning electron microscope (SEM). Results: ProTaper Universal group showed a greater dentinal volume reduction (25%; Conclusion: ProTaper Universal showed a greater dentinal loss than NeoEndo, though not statistically significant. Er:YAG LAI achieved significant sealer removal, followed by passive ultrasonic, both outperforming conventional irrigation with statistically significant cleaning efficacy.
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.