ArticleRestorative dentistry & endodontics2020
Antimicrobial efficacy of QMix on
Article in Restorative dentistry & endodontics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Smear layer removal and antimicrobial efficacy of chitosan as a root canal irrigant: a systematic review of in-vitro studies.Odontology · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Regulation of colon injury and improvement of exercise performance in exhausted running mice byFrontiers in physiology · 2024Article
- A Local Desiccant Antimicrobial Agent as an Alternative to Adjunctive Antibiotics in the Treatment of Periodontitis: A Narrative Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Comparative evaluation of canal cleanliness at apical third using Self-Adjusting File and Wave One File with different irrigants: anMedicine and pharmacy reports · 2023Article
- AnBiomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2023Article
- Evaluation of Bacterial Reduction at Various Stages of Endodontic Retreatment After Use of Different Disinfection Regimens: An In Vivo Study.European endodontic journal · 2022Article
- Article
- The Management of Immature Necrotic Permanent Molars for Uncooperative Child: A Case Report with 12-Month Follow-up.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2022Article
- Microbiological Aspects of Root Canal Infections and Disinfection Strategies: An Update Review on the Current Knowledge and Challenges.Frontiers in oral health · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to summarize the outcome of in vitro studies comparing the antibacterial effectiveness of QMix with other irrigants against MATERIALS AND
methodsThe research question was developed by using population, intervention, comparison, outcome, and study design framework. The literature search was performed using 3 electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCOhost until October 2019. The additional hand search was performed from the reference list of the eligible studies. The risk of bias of the studies was independently appraised using the revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0).
resultsFourteen studies were included in this systematic review. The overall risk of bias for the selected studies was moderate. QMix was found to have a higher antimicrobial activity compared to 2% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), 2% chlorhexidine (CHX), mixture of tetracycline isonomer, an acid and a detergent (MTAD), 0.2% Cetrimide, SilverSol/H2O2, HYBENX, and grape seed extract (GSE). QMix had higher antibacterial efficacy compared to NaOCl, only when used for a longer time (10 minutes) and with higher volume (above 3 mL).
conclusionsQMix has higher antibacterial activity than 17% EDTA, 2% CHX, MTAD, 0.2% Cetrimide, SilverSol/H2O2, HYBENX, GSE and NaOCl with lower concentration. To improve the effectiveness, QMix is to use for a longer time and at a higher volume.
trial registrationPROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews Identifier: CRD42018096763.
Indexed as
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.