ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Evaluation of Dentinal Microcrack Formation Following Root Canal Preparation With Three Single-File Nickel-Titanium Systems.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionDentinal microcracks may develop during mechanical root canal preparation, compromising the structural integrity of root-filled teeth. This study compared dentinal microcrack formation following preparation using three single-file nickel-titanium systems. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis in vitro study was conducted on 36 extracted single-rooted mandibular premolars, which were randomly allocated into three groups (n = 12): One-Shape, Flexer ONE, and HyFlex EDM. Micro-computed tomography was used to evaluate dentinal microcracks before and after instrumentation. Incomplete microcracks, complete microcracks, craze lines, and total cracks were assessed. Two-factor mixed analysis of variance with Bonferroni-adjusted post-hoc comparisons was used for statistical analysis, with significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsInstrumentation resulted in a significant increase in incomplete and complete microcracks, craze lines, and total cracks across all three groups (all p < 0.001). The between-group effect was significant for total cracks (p = 0.004), while the group × time interaction was also significant (p = 0.004). Post-hoc analysis demonstrated a significant difference in total crack formation between the One-Shape and HyFlex EDM (mean difference = 2.50, p = 0.002). Postoperatively, One-Shape showed significantly fewer total cracks than Flexer ONE (p = 0.016) and HyFlex EDM (p < 0.001), whereas the difference between Flexer ONE and HyFlex EDM was not significant (p = 1.000).
conclusionAll three single-file systems increased dentinal microcrack formation after root canal preparation. Although differences were not significant for individual crack categories, the total crack formation differed among the systems, with One-Shape demonstrating the lowest postoperative crack formation.
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.