Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31800870›Full record

ArticleJournal of applied oral science : revista FOB2020

Comparative effects of final canal irrigation with chitosan and EDTA.

Polliana Vilaça Silva Antunes, Luis Eduardo Souza Flamini, Jardel Francisco Mazzi Chaves, Ricardo Gariba Silva, Antonio Miranda da Cruz Filho

Open access · diamondAbstract readComparative StudyEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.0field-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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 37 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Nanoparticles in Dentistry: A Comprehensive Review.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021
    Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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.

Polliana Vilaça Silva AntunesUniversidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Odontologia de Ribeirão Preto, Departamento de Odontologia Restauradora, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brasil.ORCID 0000-0002-0440-936X
Luis Eduardo Souza FlaminiUniversidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Odontologia de Ribeirão Preto, Departamento de Odontologia Restauradora, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brasil.ORCID 0000-0002-9248-6137
Jardel Francisco Mazzi ChavesUniversidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Odontologia de Ribeirão Preto, Departamento de Odontologia Restauradora, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brasil.ORCID 0000-0002-9889-1790
Ricardo Gariba SilvaUniversidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Odontologia de Ribeirão Preto, Departamento de Odontologia Restauradora, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brasil.ORCID 0000-0003-2568-7999
Antonio Miranda da Cruz FilhoUniversidade de São Paulo, Faculdade de Odontologia de Ribeirão Preto, Departamento de Odontologia Restauradora, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brasil.ORCID 0000-0002-5894-9046
Universidade de Ribeirão Preto · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

other: Chitosan is a natural, biocompatible chelating substance with potential for dental use. This study compared the effects of final canal irrigation with chitosan and EDTA on dentin microhardness, sealer dentin tubules penetration capacity, and push-out strength. METHODOLOGY: Fifty canine roots were distributed according to the final irrigation protocol (n=10): G1- 15% EDTA with conventional irrigation; G2- 15% EDTA with Endovac; G3- 0.2% chitosan with conventional irrigation; G4- 0.2% chitosan with Endovac; and G5- without irrigation. Specimens were obturated (AH Plus) and sectioned in 3 slices per root third. The first slice was used for microhardness and sealer penetration assessments under a laser confocal microscope. The second was utilized in a push-out strength test. The third slice was discarded. Data were analyzed using 2-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test (α<0.05). Failure mode was determined at x40 magnification.

resultsMicrohardness reduction was more significant in groups G2 and G4 (p<0.05). Sealer penetration through dentin was significantly greater in group G2 (p<0.05). There was no significant difference between groups G1, G3, and G4 (p>0.05). In general, all experimental groups presented similar bond resistance (p>0.05) that significantly differed from the control (p<0.001). Mixed type failures were predominant.

conclusionsIn general, 0.2% chitosan and 15% EDTA solutions act in a similar manner with regard to the variables studied. The use of Endovac potentiates the effect of these solutions.

Indexed as

Analysis of VarianceChelating AgentsChitosanDental BondingDentinEdetic AcidEpoxy ResinsHardness TestsHumansMaterials TestingMicroscopy, ConfocalMiddle AgedReference ValuesReproducibility of ResultsRoot Canal Filling MaterialsRoot Canal IrrigantsChelating AgentsChitosanEdetic Acidepoxy resin-based root canal sealerEpoxy ResinsRoot Canal Filling MaterialsRoot Canal Irrigants

Identifiers

PMID31800870
PMCPMC6886396
OpenAlexW2991079114

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.