ArticleJournal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry
Cleaning of endodontic files with and without enzymatic detergent by means of the manual method versus the ultrasonic method: An experimental study.
Article in Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of different cleaning methods on surface contamination of unused endodontic files: a scanning electron microscopy analysis.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Quantitative Evaluation of Debris Removal from NiTi Rotary Endodontic Instruments After Different Cleaning Procedures.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Microbial Culture and Scanning Electron Microscopic Evaluation of Endodontic Hand Files: An In Vitro Study.Cureus · 2022Article
- Bond Strength and Failure Mode of Glass Fiber Posts with Different Surface Treatments Prior to Silanization: AnJournal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
- Tensile Strength and Elastic Modulus of Gutta-percha Cones Disinfected with Sodium Hypochlorite at Different Immersion Times: AnJournal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this article is to evaluate the cleanliness level achieved with and without the application of enzymatic detergent for the manual method versus the ultrasonic method, applied to Flexoreamer K-type files No. 25, No. 30, and No. 35. MATERIALS AND
methods192 K-type Flexoreamer files were divided into four categories: A1 (ultrasonic method with enzymatic detergent), A2 (ultrasonic method without enzymatic detergent), B1 (manual method with enzymatic detergent), and B2 (manual method without enzymatic detergent). Each category was randomly distributed in three groups of 16 files each (No. 25, No. 30, and No. 35). The files were used for biomechanical instrumentation of the root canal in premolars. The active part of the files was examined under a stereomicroscope, considering four cleaning levels: 4 (100% cleanliness), 3 (95-99% cleanliness), 2 (85-94% cleanliness), 1 (75-84% cleanliness), and 0 (less than 75% cleanliness). For hypothesis testing, the Mann-Whitney
resultsWhen using enzymatic detergents, the manual and ultrasonic methods did not show significant differences when comparing each group of the files analyzed (
conclusionThe ultrasonic cleaning method proved to be the most effective method for the removal of biologic waste when compared with the manual method using a nylon brush. However, there was no significant difference between these two methods when enzymatic detergent was used.
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.