ArticleCureus2026
Evaluation of Remaining Dentine Thickness in Mandibular Incisors After Shaping With Varied Tapered Instruments: A Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT) Comparative Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study evaluated by cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) the impact of canal enlargement using ProGresShape (REKITA, Zouk Mikael, Lebanon) rotary files with 5% and 7% tapers on remaining dentine thickness (RDT) in mandibular incisors with different root canal configurations.
methodsTwenty-four mandibular incisors with two root canal configurations (n=12) were selected and scanned using CBCT. Canal shaping was performed in two steps: first with ProGresShape up to #25.05, followed by #25.07. After each step, a new CBCT scan was taken. RDT was measured at the coronal, middle, and apical thirds of the root, considering both mesial and distal walls. Statistical analyses were performed using repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) (p<0.05).
resultsA statistically significant difference in RDT was observed after preparation with 5% and 7% taper files (p<0.05). The 5% taper preserved more dentine than the 7%. In both groups, the number of root surfaces measuring less than 0.5 mm increased significantly after shaping, particularly in the apical third. The 25.07 file resulted in more slices under 0.5 mm compared to the 25.05 file. Overall, shaping led to a notable reduction in dentine, raising concerns about the risks of perforation and fracture, especially apically.
conclusionInstruments with a smaller taper (<5%) are preferable for shaping mandibular incisors to preserve dentine thickness. However, clinicians must ensure effective disinfection protocols. Future research should explore irrigation activation protocols in conservative approaches for mandibular incisors with different configurations.
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.