Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30558797›Full record

SynthesisJournal of endodontics2019

Ultrasonic Irrigant Activation during Root Canal Treatment: A Systematic Review.

Petruţa E Căpută, Anastasios Retsas, Lydwien Kuijk, Luis E Chávez de Paz, Christos Boutsioukis

Abstract readComparative StudySystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of endodontics, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 71 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
71citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
14.4field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

71 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 149 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

11 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Petruţa E CăputăDepartment of Endodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Anastasios RetsasDepartment of Endodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Lydwien KuijkPrivate Practice, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Luis E Chávez de PazPrivate Practice, Stockholm, Sweden.
Christos BoutsioukisDepartment of Endodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Electronic address: c.boutsioukis@acta.nl.
Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam · NLGGD Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe aim of this study was to systematically review the evidence on the cleaning and disinfection of root canals and the healing of apical periodontitis when ultrasonic irrigant activation is applied during primary root canal treatment of mature permanent teeth compared with syringe irrigation.

methodsAn electronic search was conducted of the Cochrane Library, Embase, LILACS, PubMed, SciELO, and Scopus databases using both free-text key words and controlled vocabulary. Additional studies were sought through hand searching of endodontic journals and textbooks. The retrieved studies were screened by 2 reviewers according to predefined criteria. The included studies were critically appraised, and the extracted data were arranged in tables.

resultsThe electronic and hand search retrieved 1966 titles. Three clinical studies and 45 in vitro studies were included in this review. Ultrasonic activation did not improve the healing rate of apical periodontitis compared with syringe irrigation after primary root canal treatment of teeth with a single root canal. Conflicting results were reported by the in vitro microbiological studies. Ultrasonic activation was more effective than syringe irrigation in the removal of pulp tissue remnants and hard tissue debris based on both clinical and in vitro studies. Ultrasonic activation groups were possibly favored in 13 studies, whereas syringe irrigation groups may have been favored in 3 studies.

conclusionsThe level of the available evidence was low, so no strong clinical recommendations could be formulated. Future studies should focus on the antimicrobial effect and healing of apical periodontitis in teeth with multiple root canals.

Indexed as

Dental Pulp CavityRoot Canal TherapySyringesUltrasonicsDatabases, BibliographicDental DisinfectantsDetergentsHumansPeriapical PeriodontitisRoot Canal IrrigantsTherapeutic IrrigationTreatment OutcomeDental DisinfectantsDetergentsRoot Canal IrrigantsApical periodontitiscleaningdisinfectionirrigationroot canalultrasonic activation

Identifiers

PMID30558797
OpenAlexW2905054485

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.