Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32112364›Full record

ArticleOdontology2020

Antimicrobial effectiveness of etidronate powder (Dual Rinse

Luciano Giardino, Paolo Savadori, Luigi Generali, Zahed Mohammadi, Massimo Del Fabbro, Elena De Vecchi, Alessandro Bidossi

Open access · greenAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Odontology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Cyotoxicity of Etidronate as an Endodontic Chelator Against Periodontal Ligament Fibroblast.Australian endodontic journal : the journal of the Australian Society of Endodontology Inc · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 3 countries.

Luciano GiardinoFreelance Researcher, Crotone, Italy.
Paolo SavadoriIRCCS Orthopedic Institute Galeazzi, Milan, Italy.
Luigi GeneraliDepartment of Surgery, Medicine, Dentistry and Morphological Sciences With Transplant Surgery, Oncology and Regenerative Medicine Relevance (CHIMOMO), University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, Modena, Italy.
Zahed MohammadiIranian Center for Endodontic Research, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Massimo Del FabbroIRCCS Orthopedic Institute Galeazzi, Milan, Italy. massimo.delfabbro@unimi.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7144-0984
Elena De VecchiLaboratory of Clinical Chemistry and Microbiology, IRCCS Orthopedic Institute Galeazzi, Milan, Italy.
Alessandro BidossiLaboratory of Clinical Chemistry and Microbiology, IRCCS Orthopedic Institute Galeazzi, Milan, Italy.
Istituto Ortopedico Galeazzi · ITIstituto S.Anna Crotone · ITShahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences · IRUniversity of Milan · ITUniversity of Modena and Reggio Emilia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the antimicrobial and antibiofilm activity of two chelating agents: ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) combined or not with detergents, and etidronic acid combined with sterile saline. The bacterial inhibitory and bactericidal concentrations (MIC and MBC, respectively) were determined on Enterococcus faecalis ATCC 4083 strain. Antimicrobial tests were performed on a biofilm model after treatment with the chelating agents at different times (1, 3, and 5 min) using a biofilm eradication concentration (MBEC) and confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM) assays. Quantification of cell biomass and percentage of live and dead cells in the biomass was assessed for each group. The normality of the distributions for each variable was assessed using the D'Agostino and Pearson's omnibus normality test. The comparison of bacterial viability among groups and between any two groups was performed using the non-parametric Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance and the Dunn's test, respectively. No significant between-group difference was observed regarding biomass reduction. On the other hand, EDTA combined with detergents displayed a substantial increase of the dead bacteria ranging between 35 and 43%; whereas, the number of cells killed in the control group and in the other treated groups always ranged between 1 and 6%, at all experimental times. The addition of detergents to EDTA can improve its anti-biofilm activity by reducing EPS production and enhancing the killing of sessile bacterial cells. Clinical relevance EDTA presents a relevant antimicrobial activity when combined with surface-active agents.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective AgentsEnterococcus faecalisAnti-Bacterial AgentsBiofilmsEdetic AcidEtidronic AcidMicroscopy, ConfocalRoot Canal IrrigantsAnti-Bacterial AgentsAnti-Infective AgentsEdetic AcidEtidronic AcidRoot Canal IrrigantsBiofilmChelating agentsConfocal laser scanning microscopyDetergentsEnterococcus faecalis

Identifiers

PMID32112364
OpenAlexW3006829350

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.