Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33680899›Full record

ReviewRestorative dentistry & endodontics2021

Clinical efficacy of activated irrigation in endodontics: a focused review.

Amelia Wan Tin Cheung, Angeline Hui Cheng Lee, Gary Shun Pan Cheung

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Restorative dentistry & endodontics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
4.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Amelia Wan Tin CheungDiscipline of Endodontology, Division of Restorative Dental Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7011-0473
Angeline Hui Cheng LeeDiscipline of Endodontology, Division of Restorative Dental Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3118-0556
Gary Shun Pan CheungDiscipline of Endodontology, Division of Restorative Dental Sciences, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6892-431X
Prince Philip Dental Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Root canal debridement, which includes the removal of infected tissues and microbial biofilms, is considered the corner stone of root canal treatment. Chemical adjuncts play a multitude of functions in this regard, as tissue solvents, antimicrobial agents and for removing the smear layer. These adjuncts (irrigants) are usually delivered using a syringe and needle. With increasing knowledge of the complexity of root canal anatomy and tenacity of microbial biofilms, the need for strategies that potentiate the action of these irrigants within the root canal system cannot be overemphasized. Several such activated irrigation strategies exist. The aim of this review is to comprehensively discuss the different irrigant activation methods from the context of clinical studies.

Indexed as

Microbial reductionPainRoot canal treatmentSodium hypochloriteSonicUltrasonic

Identifiers

PMID33680899
PMCPMC7906851
OpenAlexW3128020053

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.