ArticleBMC oral health2021
An experimental intraradicular biofilm model in the pig for evaluating irrigation techniques.
Article in BMC oral health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Current Applications and Future Directions of Lasers in Endodontics: A Narrative Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Advances in bacteriophage-mediated strategies for combating polymicrobial biofilms.Frontiers in microbiology · 2023Review
- The efficacy of EndoActivator, passive ultrasonic irrigation, and Ultra X in removing calcium hydroxide from root canals: an in-vitro study.BMC oral health · 2022Article
- Comparison of EASYDO ACTIVATOR, passive ultrasonic, and needle irrigation techniques on the treatment of apical periodontitis: a study in rats.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Article
- Er:YAG laser-induced cavitation can activate irrigation for the removal of intraradicular biofilm.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Bacterial Biofilm Destruction: A Focused Review On The Recent Use of Phage-Based Strategies With Other Antibiofilm Agents.Nanotechnology, science and applications · 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWe established an in vivo intraradicular biofilm model of apical periodontitis in pigs in which we compared the efficacy of different irrigant activation techniques for biofilm removal.
methodsTwenty roots from the deciduous mandibular second premolar of 5 male pigs were used. After pulpectomy, canals were left open for 2 weeks and then sealed for 4 weeks to enable the development of an intracanal biofilm. The intraradicular biofilms was evaluated using SEM and bacterial 16S rRNA gene-sequencing. To investigate the efficacy of biofilm removal, root canal irrigations were performed using conventional needle, passive ultrasonic, subsonic, or laser-activated irrigation. Real-time PCR was conducted to quantitate the remaining biofilm components. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA followed by a Tukey kramer post-hoc test with α = 0.05.
resultsThe pulp exposure model was effective in inducing apical periodontitis and SEM analysis revealed a multi-layer biofilm formation inside the root canal. 16S rRNA sequence analysis identified Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes, and Fusobacteria as the predominant bacterial phyla components, which is similar to the microbiome profile seen in humans. None of the tested irrigation techniques completely eradicated the biofilm components from the root canal, but the subsonic and laser-activated irrigation methods produced the lowest bacterial counts (p < 0.05).
conclusionsAn experimental intraradicular biofilm model has been successfully established in pigs. Within the limitations of the study, subsonic or laser-activated irrigation demonstrated the best biofilm removal results in the pig system.
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.