ArticleRestorative dentistry & endodontics2021
Smear layer removal by passive ultrasonic irrigation and 2 new mechanical methods for activation of the chelating solution.
Article 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 10 papers.
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, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Improbable healing in endodontics: a case series of favorable outcomes despite adverse prognostic conditions.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Article
- Nanoscale Approaches to Oro-Dental Tissue Engineering: A Review of Strategies, Composites, and Translational Challenges.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
- Micro-CT Analysis of an Abrasive-expanding System of Oval Canal Debridement Capacity: Laboratory Study.European endodontic journal · 2025Article
- Advances in hybridized nanoarchitectures for improved oro-dental health.Journal of nanobiotechnology · 2024Review
- Impact of different agitation methods on smear layer cleaning of mesial canals with accentuated curvature.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2024Article
- Cleaning and disinfection of the root canal system provided by four active supplementary irrigation methods.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Article
- Evaluation of Different Agitation Techniques on Smear Layer Formation and Dentine Erosions- An In Vitro Study.European endodontic journal · 2023Article
- Irrigants and irrigation activation systems in Endodontics.Brazilian dental journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to compare smear layer removal by conventional application (CA), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), EasyClean (EC), and XP-Endo Finisher (XPF), using 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) after chemomechanical preparation, as evaluated with scanning electron microscopy (SEM). MATERIALS AND
methodsForty-five single-rooted human mandibular premolars were selected for this study. After chemomechanical preparation, the teeth were randomly divided into 5 groups according to the protocol for smear layer removal, as follows: G1 (control): CA of distilled water; G2 (CA): CA of 17% EDTA; G3 (PUI): 17% EDTA activated by PUI; G4 (EC): 17% EDTA activated by EC; and G5 (XPF): 17% EDTA activated by XPF. SEM images (×1,000) were obtained from each root third and scored by 3 examiners. Data were evaluated using the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests (
resultsIn the apical third, there were no statistically significant differences among the groups (
conclusionsNo irrigation method was able to completely remove the smear layer, especially in the apical third. Using CA for the chelating solution performed better than any form of activation.
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.