ArticleBMC medical education2026
Evaluation of magnification- and fluorescence-guided techniques for composite restoration removal during endodontic retreatment among undergraduate and postgraduate dental students.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
Abstract
objectiveThis study was planned to assess the impact of magnification and fluorescence-guidance on the performance of undergraduate and specialist program students during access cavity preparation before retreatment. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study was conducted with 4th, 5th year undergraduate and specialist program students studying in the Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Selcuk University, Konya, Türkiye. Each participant received three root-filled and composite resin restored extracted human molar teeth, which were standardly prepared by the same clinician. The teeth were scanned with an intraoral scanner (TRIOS 5) before the restoration. The participants were asked to prepare access cavities by using the following: (1) naked eye (control group); (2) operating microscope; (3) fluorescence-guided magnification (Reveal). The time required for composite material removal and reaching canal orifices (procedure period) was recorded, and all specimens were re-scanned. The resulting standard tessellation language (STL) data were superimposed on the initial scan using a software (Geomagic Control X), and three-dimensional (3D) comparisons were made. Root mean square (RMS) values were then calculated and interpreted as an indicator of the amount of tooth tissue removed and the amount of composite resin remaining. Two-way ANOVA was performed to evaluate the main and interaction effects of education level and visual guidance method on procedure period and RMS values. Post hoc pairwise comparisons were conducted using Tukey's test. Statistical significance was set at α = 0.05.
resultsThe Reveal device showed the lowest RMS value among all the test groups (p < 0.001) while no difference was observed among the others. Reveal device also recorded as the fastest method for access cavity preparation during endodontic retreatment (p < 0.001). The operating microscope required the longest period regardless of the effect of experience level (p < 0.05).
conclusionsThe Reveal device enabled effective composite material removal by facilitating the identification of previous composite resin, reduced the procedure period, and required no additional training for students with varying experience levels. Despite the advantage of high magnification, the operating microscope was found to be less useful at the beginning of education. While the control group had an advantage over the operating microscope in terms of speed, it was not as effective as the Reveal device for composite material removal.
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.