ArticleBMC oral health2026
Detection of lingual canal in mandibular single-rooted teeth using dental operating microscope and dental loupes: a comparative study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMost of the studies on the methods used to detect extra canals are related to the second mesiobuccal canal in maxillary molars. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of dental operating microscopes (DOM) and dental loupes (DL) in detecting lingual canals in extracted single-rooted mandibular teeth. The null hypothesis was that there would be no difference in lingual canal detection success between DL and DOM. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty single-rooted mandibular teeth were randomly selected by using an online randomisation tool and examined using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), which served as the reference standard. No prior information about canal configuration was provided for blinding of the operator. Lingual canals were identified in 36% of the teeth. Access cavity inspection was performed under three conditions: direct visual inspection (DVI), a 6× magnification DL, and a DOM (1.8×-19.4×). Cohen's kappa coefficient was used to assess agreement between methods. Sensitivity, confidence intervals, and statistical comparisons were reported.
resultsNone of the techniques detected all lingual canals. Sensitivity was 0.40 (95% CI: 0.22-0.61) for DVI, 0.59 (95% CI: 0.38-0.78) for DL, and 0.68 (95% CI: 0.46-0.85) for DOM. Both DOM and DL showed moderate agreement with CBCT (κ = 0.55 and κ = 0.51, respectively), with no statistically significant difference between them (p = 0.147). The success of DL (p = 0.031) and DOM (p = 0.005) in finding the lingual canal was statistically higher than DVI. The study demonstrated that magnification significantly improves lingual canal detection rates.
conclusionWhile neither tool achieved perfect accuracy, the use of magnification notably enhanced the detection of lingual canals compared to direct vision. The usage of DOM and DL may improve treatment prognosis. DLs may offer a cost-effective alternative to DOMs. However, limitations such as the ex vivo nature of the study and small sample size warrant caution. Further clinical validation is needed to support generalization to in vivo settings.
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.