Trial reportBrazilian oral research2026
Negotiability of MB2 root canals using rotary or reciprocating systems: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This randomized clinical trial evaluated the ability to negotiate second mesiobuccal (MB2) root canals in maxillary molars using nickel-titanium (NiTi) instruments in rotary and reciprocating kinematics. A total of 110 patients with MB2 canals were randomly assigned to two groups: EL - Easy Logic2 rotary instruments (n = 57) and X1B - MKLife X1 Blue reciprocating instruments (n = 53). Canals reached to full working length (FWL) were classified as "negotiable". In the X1B group, 96.2% of MB2 canals were negotiable, compared to 86% in the EL group, with no statistically significant difference (p = 0.152). Mean shaping time was shorter in the EL group (12.92 ± 4.36 min) than in the X1B group (14.33 ± 4.72 min), showing a significant difference (p = 0.047). Both systems showed high MB2 negotiability. However, regarding negotiability, both systems did not show statistically significant differences when adjusted Cox regression was used (Hazard ratio: 0.77; 95% confidence interval: 0.51 - 1.14). Rotary instruments showed a slight advantage in shaping time efficiency.
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.