ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2012
No evidence favouring one irrigant versus another in root canal treatments.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Model assessing thermal changes during high temperature root canal irrigation.Healthcare technology letters · 2016Article
- Effect of root canal rinsing protocol on dentin bond strength of two resin cements using three different method of test.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
data sourcesThe Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, CENTRAL, Medline, Embase, and LILACS databases were searched with no restrictions. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving single or multi-rooted permanent teeth requiring root canal treatment (RoCT) which compared irrigants against each other or against inactive irrigant or placebo were included. Combinations of irrigants were allowed and if used in conjunction with EDTA (ethylenediaminetetra-acetic acid) or similar chelating agents. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias of included trials and extracted data.
resultsEleven trials (851 participants, 879 teeth) were included. Six trials were assessed at high risk of bias, three unclear and two low. Four compared sodium hypochlorite versus chlorhexidine, the other trials compared different interventions and only two of these trials included useable data on the primary outcomes of swelling and pain. Meta-analysis of sodium hypochlorite versus chlorhexidine indicated no strong evidence of a difference in the existence of bacterial growth between the interventions (risk ratio 0.73; 95% confidence interval 0.34 to 1.56; P = 0.41). None of the included trials reported any data on adverse effects nor radiological changes in periapical radiolucency.
conclusionsAlthough root canal irrigants such as sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine appear to be effective at reducing bacterial cultures when compared to saline, most of the studies included in this review failed to adequately report these clinically important and potentially patient-relevant outcomes. There is currently insufficient reliable evidence showing the superiority of any one individual irrigant. The strength and reliability of the supporting evidence was variable, and clinicians should be aware that changes in bacterial counts or pain in the early postoperative period may not be accurate indicators of long-term success. Future trials should report both clinician-relevant and patient-preferred outcomes at clearly defined perioperative, as well as long-term, time points.
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.