ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2026
Evaluation of different methods for separated file retrieval from the apical third of curved root canals:
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 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
Background: This study aimed to evaluate the interaction between different ultrasonic troughing tips and varying retrieval tools in removing separated instruments from the apical third of the mesiobuccal (MB) root canal of maxillary molars, focusing on dentin loss and retrieval time. Methods: Sixty MB canals from extracted human maxillary first molars were used. A size 25/04 Nickel-Titanium file was intentionally fractured beyond the curve. Teeth were randomly assigned according to the troughing method (Ultra-X golden tip vs. ET25 L tip) and retrieval tool (BTR Pen vs. modified tube technique). Cone-beam computed tomography was used to measure dentin thickness before and after retrieval. Statistical analysis used two-way analysis of variance, Tukey's HSD Results: ET25 L group paired with the BTR Pen caused the greatest dentin loss (0.3035 ± 0.17 mm), while the ET25 L paired with the tube technique resulted in the least (0.2218 ± 0.13 mm). For retrieval time, the ET25 L tip was significantly faster than the Ultra-X tip ( Conclusions: The ET25 L tip paired with the modified tube technique provides the most conservative and time-efficient approach for retrieving apically separated instruments.
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.