ArticleBMC oral health2026
A comparative analysis of the shaping ability of four different endodontic files: an in vitro 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. 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
backgroundIn this study, the shaping performance of four rotary endodontic files was evaluated and compared using micro-computed tomography (Micro-CT).
methodsFour NiTi endodontic file systems (Dentsply ProTaper Gold [PG], EndoArt Action Gold [AG], VDW Reciproc Blue [RB], and EndoArt Expert Blue [EB]) were tested using standardized 3D-printed teeth to investigate the untouched canal surface, canal volume, structure model index (SMI), residual canal wall removal, canal transportation, and centering ability. Data normality was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk test. Depending on distribution, parametric (ANOVA) or non-parametric (Kruskal-Wallis) tests were applied, with Bonferroni-adjusted post-hoc comparisons. Means with confidence intervals and medians with interquartile ranges were reported.
resultsFor post-instrumentation surface area, significant differences were observed between PG and both RB and EB, as well as between AG and both RB and EB (p < 0.05). Surface area changed significantly after instrumentation in all groups (p < 0.05). For post-instrumentation canal volume, significant differences were observed between PG and AG, RB, and EB, as well as between AG and RB and EB (p < 0.05). Canal volume changed significantly after instrumentation in all groups (p < 0.05). For post-instrumentation canal wall thickness, significant differences were observed at the apical 3 mm level between PG and AG, PG and RB, and RB and EB, at the middle 5 mm level between PG and RB only, and at the coronal 7 mm level between PG and EB and between AG and EB (p < 0.05).
conclusionWithin the limitations of this in vitro study, all file systems demonstrated generally comparable shaping performance, although differences were observed in specific measured outcomes. The alternative file systems showed similar overall performance to the original systems, with some less favorable findings in canal transportation and centering ability at certain root levels. These findings should be interpreted cautiously and validated under clinical conditions.
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.