ArticleBrazilian oral research2026
Effects of different platform preparation and retrieval techniques on broken file removal and fracture strength.
Article in Brazilian oral research, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim was to evaluate the effects of different strategies on broken instrument removal and root fracture strength. After canal preparation of anterior single-rooted teeth, the samples were divided into one control group (n = 10) and six experimental groups (n = 15). A #25/.06 rotary file was broken at a length of 4 mm in the middle-third canal region in the experimental groups, and no instrument fractures were created in the control group. Access to the instrument was achieved with Gates-Glidden (GG) burs or ultrasonic tips. Dentin around the instrument was removed to create partial or full platforms. Finally, the instruments were removed with ultrasonic tips or a BTR Pen. The effectiveness of broken instrument removal, the duration of removal, and any complications that occurred were recorded. All the root canals were obturated. Fracture strength analysis was performed using a universal testing machine. Statistical analysis was performed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests (p < 0.05). All broken instruments were successfully removed. The access time to the broken instrument in the groups using GG burs was shorter than that in the groups using ultrasonic tips (p < 0.05), while there was no significant difference between the groups in terms of total removal time (p > 0.05). The fracture strength of the control group was similar to that of the group in which ultrasonic tips were used to access the broken instrument and to create a full platform, and the BTR Pen was used for the removal of the broken instrument (p > 0.05), but showed higher fracture strength than that of the other experimental groups (p < 0.05). Different strategies used in the removal of broken instruments affected access time and root fracture strength.
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.