ArticleRestorative dentistry & endodontics2020
Effect of QMix irrigant in removal of smear layer in root canal system: a systematic review of
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 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping risk of bias criteria in systematic reviews of in vitro endodontic studies: an umbrella review.Evidence-based dentistry · 2025Pooled it
- Chitosan's Ability to Remove the Smear Layer-A Systematic Review of Ex Vivo Studies.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Pooled it
- Narrative Review of Endodontic Biomaterials.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Enhancing Endodontic Outcomes with the Synergistic Microbicidal and Activated Root-Cleansing Technique (SMART): A Novel Approach to Root Canal Irrigation.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
- Cleaning Effectiveness of QMix and EDTA When Activated with Different Techniques: An In Vitro Study.European endodontic journal · 2025Article
- Article
- Evolution of the combined effect of different irrigation solutions and activation techniques on the removal of smear layer and dentin microhardness in oval-shaped root canal: An in-vitro study.Biomolecules & biomedicine · 2023Article
- Comparative evaluation of canal cleanliness at apical third using Self-Adjusting File and Wave One File with different irrigants: anMedicine and pharmacy reports · 2023Article
- Effectiveness of Different Final Irrigation Procedures onMaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- The Management of Immature Necrotic Permanent Molars for Uncooperative Child: A Case Report with 12-Month Follow-up.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2022Article
- Evaluation of a Novel Tool for Apical Plug Formation during Apexification of Immature Teeth.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Comparative effects of Er:YAG laser, and EDTA, MTAD, and QMix irrigants on adhesion of stem cells from the apical papilla to dentin: A scanning electron microscopic study.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2022Article
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 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the outcome of MATERIALS AND
methodsThe research question was developed by using Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome and Study design framework. Literature search was performed using 3 electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, and EBSCOhost until October 2019. Two reviewers were independently involved in the selection of the articles and data extraction process. Risk of bias of the studies was independently appraised using revised Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0) based on 5 domains.
resultsThirteen studies fulfilled the selection criteria. The overall risk of bias was moderate. QMix was found to have better smear layer removal ability than mixture of tetracycline isonomer, an acid and a detergent (MTAD), sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), and phytic acid. The efficacy was less effective than 7% maleic acid and 10% citric acid. No conclusive results could be drawn between QMix and 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid due to conflicting results. QMix was more effective when used for 3 minutes than 1 minute.
conclusionsQMix has better smear layer removal ability compared to MTAD, NaOCl, Tubulicid Plus, and Phytic acid. In order to remove the smear layer more effectively with QMix, it is recommended to use it for a longer duration.
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.