ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Evaluation of Three Endodontic File Systems for Pericervical Dentin Preservation and Canal Transportation Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: An In Vivo Study.
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
introductionThe preservation of pericervical dentin (PCD) and maintenance of the original root canal anatomy are fundamental objectives of contemporary minimally invasive endodontics. Advances in nickel-titanium (NiTi) rotary instrumentation have led to the development of file systems designed to improve shaping efficiency while minimizing dentin removal and canal transportation. Therefore, our aim was to compare the effects of GenEndo (Coltene Holding AG, Altstätten, Switzerland), ProTaper Ultimate (Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland), and TruNatomy (Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland) rotary file systems on PCD preservation and canal transportation using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis prospective in vivo comparative clinical study included 30 mandibular first molars requiring primary root canal treatment. The teeth were categorized into three groups (
resultsSignificant intergroup differences were observed in PCD preservation at all evaluated surfaces (p < 0.05). TruNatomy demonstrated the greatest preservation of PCD, followed by GenEndo, whereas ProTaper Ultimate exhibited the greatest dentin removal. Canal transportation also differed significantly among the groups (
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this prospective in vivo clinical study, TruNatomy demonstrated superior preservation of PCD and significantly reduced canal transportation compared with GenEndo and ProTaper Ultimate. These findings support the use of heat-treated NiTi rotary systems to maintain root canal anatomy while preserving critical dentin during endodontic treatment.
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.