Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25466470›Full record

SynthesisJournal of applied oral science : revista FOB

Antibacterial effect of calcium hydroxide combined with chlorhexidine on Enterococcus faecalis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Masoud Saatchi, Ali Shokraneh, Hooman Navaei, Mohammad Reza Maracy, Hasan Shojaei

Open access · diamondAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.1field-weighted citation impact, top 6% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 83 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Influence of number of visits on the outcome of endodontic treatment.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2024
    Review
  7. Comparative evaluation of antibacterial efficacy ofJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Masoud SaatchiDepartment of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Ali ShokranehDepartment of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Hooman NavaeiTorabinejad Dental Research Center, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Mohammad Reza MaracyDepartment of Biostatistics and Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Hasan ShojaeiDepartment of Microbiology, School of Medicine, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.
Isfahan University of Medical Sciences · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveEnterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis) is the most frequently isolated strain in failed endodontic therapy cases since it is resistant to calcium hydroxide (CH). Whether a combination of CH and chlorhexidine (CHX) is more effective than CH alone against E. faecalis is a matter of controversy. Thus, the aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. MATERIAL AND

methodsA comprehensive search in PubMed, EMbase, EBSCOhost, The Cochrane Library, SciELO, and BBO databases, Clinical trials registers, Open Grey, and conference proceedings from the earliest available date to February 1, 2013 was carried out and the relevant articles were identified by two independent reviewers. Backward and forward search was performed and then inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. The included studies were divided into "comparisons" according to the depth of sampling and dressing period of each medicament. Meta-analysis was performed using Stata software 10.0. The level of significance was set at 0.05.

resultsEighty-five studies were retrieved from databases and backward/forward searches. Fortyfive studies were considered as relevant (5 in vivo, 18 in vitro, 18 ex vivo, and 4 review articles). Nine studies were included for meta-analysis. Inter-observer agreement (Cohen kappa) was 0.93. The included studies were divided into 21 comparisons for meta-analysis. Chi-square test showed the comparisons were heterogeneous (p<0.001). Random effect model demonstrated no significant difference between CH/CHX mixture and CH alone in their effect on E. faecalis (p=0.115).

conclusionsAccording to the evidence available now, mixing CH with CHX does not significantly increase the antimicrobial activity of CH against E. faecalis. It appears that mixing CH with CHX does not improve its ex vivo antibacterial property as an intracanal medicament against E. faecalis. Further in vivo studies are necessary to confirm and correlate the findings of this study with the clinical outcomes.

Indexed as

AnimalsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCalcium HydroxideCattleChlorhexidineDental Pulp CavityDrug CombinationsEnterococcus faecalisHumansRoot Canal TherapyAnti-Bacterial AgentsCalcium HydroxideChlorhexidineDrug Combinations

Identifiers

PMID25466470
PMCPMC4245746
OpenAlexW2046368318

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.