ArticleBrazilian dental journal2026
Minimally Invasive Access in Endodontics: A National Survey of Brazilian Specialists.
Article in Brazilian dental journal, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate Brazilian endodontists' perceptions of minimally invasive access cavities, characterize access-design choices, and identify the information sources informing these decisions. This cross-sectional survey randomly sampled endodontists registered with the Federal Council of Dentistry in 2021. Consenting participants completed a previously validated questionnaire. A minimum sample of 376 was calculated (assumed proportion 50%; margin of error 5%). Descriptive statistics summarized responses, and Pearson's chi-square tested associations between access type and covariates (α = 0.05). Of 378 respondents, most reported using traditional access for anterior (55.8%) and posterior teeth (66.4%). On a 0-5 scale, the modal self-rated knowledge of minimally invasive access cavities was 4 (28%). Most agreed/strongly agreed that minimally invasive access cavities: increases fracture resistance (49.5%); hinders canal location (84.4%); impairs instrument centering during preparation (73.5%); raises the risk of apical transportation (43.4%) and iatrogenic deviations (63.0%); contributes to debris accumulation (60.1%); compromises pulp-chamber cleaning (74.6%); elevates the likelihood of instrument fracture (68.3%); and increases the risk of coronal discoloration (57.6%). Scientific articles were the most frequently cited source of professional updating (44.2%). Brazilian endodontists perceived multiple procedural risks associated with minimally invasive access cavities and often believed it improves fracture resistance, a view not supported by current evidence. These findings reveal a perception-evidence gap and underscore the need to strengthen critical appraisal and evidence integration in education and clinical decision-making on access cavity design.
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.