ArticleActa odontologica Scandinavica2026
Comparison of the ultrasonic, Masserann, and BTR-pen techniques for removing fractured instruments with dental microscope: a CBCT-based in vitro study.
Article in Acta odontologica Scandinavica, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis in vitro study compared the efficacy, dentin loss, and outcomes of ultrasonic, Masserann, and Broken Tool Remover Pen (BTR-Pen) techniques for removing fractured endodontic instruments using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) analysis. MATERIALS AND
methodsNinety extracted single-rooted teeth were randomly allocated into three groups (n = 30). ProTaper F2 instruments were intentionally fractured in the middle third of each canal, creating 3-4 mm fragments. Removal was performed using ultrasonic tips, Masserann trephine burs, or the BTR-Pen loop system. CBCT scans quantified dentin loss. Success rates, removal times, and complications were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance, Tukey honestly significant difference, chi-square, and likelihood-ratio chi-square tests (p < 0.05).
resultsUltrasonic removal showed the highest success rate (90.0%), followed by BTR-Pen (86.7%) and Masserann (70.0%). Pairwise likelihood-ratio chi-square analysis showed lower success for Masserann than ultrasonic removal (p = 0.049). Masserann caused significantly greater canal volume increase (4.50 ± 0.50 mm³) than ultrasonic (0.75 ± 0.30 mm³) and BTR-Pen (0.93 ± 0.40 mm³) techniques (p < 0.001). Ultrasonic removal required the shortest time (110.0 ± 35.0 s), followed by BTR-Pen (213.4 ± 40.0 s) and Masserann (240.0 ± 50.0 s).
conclusionsUltrasonic and BTR-Pen techniques achieved high success with better dentin preservation than Masserann. When retrieval is indicated, techniques that maximize dentin preservation should be preferred to reduce the risk of root weakening and procedural complications.
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.