ArticleInternational endodontic journal2026
A Consensus-Based Glossary for Controversial Terminology in Root and Canal Anatomy.
Article in International endodontic journal, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- A Consensus-Based Glossary for Controversial Terminology in Root and Canal Anatomy.International endodontic journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo produce a glossary of controversial terminology relating to a variety of anatomical features of root canals. MATERIALS AND
methodsA multi-stage consensus process was designed and applied to generate definitions for controversial terms describing root and canal anatomy. The overall direction of the project was provided by an Executive Group, whereas a separate Task & Finish Group was convened to compile a preliminary list of controversial terms together with proposed definitions. This draft was then circulated to an international panel of 32 experts, who took part in an anonymous, web-based Delphi exercise to give independent feedback. Findings from this Delphi round were subsequently examined and debated during a virtual meeting.
resultsFollowing the Delphi exercise, 14 of the 15 proposed terms achieved the pre-specified consensus threshold, with more than 70% of respondents rating them above 7. Consensus was not initially reached for the remaining term ('furcation accessory canal'); its definition was subsequently amended and put through a further Delphi round, after which agreement was achieved. A follow-up virtual meeting involving 19 experts reviewed the Delphi outcomes and proposed further refinements. In response, the Executive Group and Task & Finish Group prepared the final version of the glossary.
conclusionThrough a rigorous, structured process of international expert consensus, a glossary addressing controversial terminology in root and canal anatomy has been established. This resource offers a dependable basis for consistent, standardised terminology going forward, with relevance across clinical practice, teaching and research.
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.