ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2026
Evaluation of Canal Transportation, Centring Ability, Shaping Volume and Debris Extrusion in Double-Curved Root Canals Prepared with Four Reciprocating Systems: An in vitro study.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This in vitro study aims to evaluate canal transportation, centring ability, volumetric change, and apical debris extrusion of four reciprocating systems using CBCT, machine-learning segmentation, and the Myers-Montgomery method. Material and Methods: Forty-eight 3D-printed maxillary canine resin teeth with standardised double-curved canals were randomly allocated to Reciproc Blue (RB), WaveOne Gold (WOG), One Reci (OR), or RC-One (n = 12). All canals were prepared at body temperature using manufacturer-recommended kinematics. Pre- and post-instrumentation CBCT scans (voxel size 70 µm) were segmented using supervised clustering to obtain canal geometry. Transportation and centring ability were analysed at 0.5-10 mm from the apex. Canal volume change was calculated from three-dimensional reconstructions. Apically extruded debris was collected and weighed. Non-parametric statistics (Kruskal-Wallis with Dunn's post hoc test) were applied ( = 0.05). Results: RC-One exhibited the lowest debris extrusion (median 0.032 mg), whereas WOG produced the greatest extrusion. RC-One also showed the lowest canal transportation (median 0.27), significantly lower than the other systems (p < 0.001), while WOG demonstrated the highest transportation (mean 0.80). RC-One achieved the highest centring ability (mean 0.69), whereas WOG showed the lowest (mean 0.42). The smallest volumetric enlargement was observed with RC-One (99.57%), significantly lower than WOG and RB (p < 0.01). WOG produced the greatest volume increase (137.23%). Conclusions: RC-One demonstrated the most favourable overall performance, with superior centring ability, minimal transportation, conservative shaping, and the lowest apical debris extrusion. These outcomes may be related to the interaction between its alloy properties, geometric design, and reciprocating kinematics. In contrast, WOG showed greater canal deviation and debris extrusion under the present experimental conditions.
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.