ReviewEvidence-based dentistry2021
Removal of accumulated hard tissue debris from mesial root of mandibular molars evaluated using micro-CT - a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Review in Evidence-based dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adjunctive SAF Infinitum With Continuous NaOCl/HEDP Chelation Reduces Hard-Tissue Debris in Flattened Canals After Single-File Preparation: A Micro-CT Study.Australian endodontic journal : the journal of the Australian Society of Endodontology Inc · 2026Article
- Histological evaluation of dentin-pulp tissue response after transplantation of stem cells from periosteum and human deciduous teeth and in rats.Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL · 2025Article
- Isthmus morphology influences debridement efficacy of activated irrigation: A laboratory study involving biofilm mimicking hydrogel removal and high-speed imaging.International endodontic journal · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim The aim of this systematic review and network meta-analysis was to identify the best irrigant activation technique (IAT) for the removal of accumulated hard tissue debris (AHTD) from the mesial root of mandibular molars evaluated using micro-CT studies.Methods The research question was based on the PICO format. Four electronic databases - PubMed, Scopus, Embase and Web of Science - were searched for articles up to June 2020. Selected articles were assessed for bias using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical appraisal tool. The network meta-analysis using a fixed-effects model and SUCRA ranking were performed. The quality of the evidence was assessed using the CINeMA framework.Results Eleven studies were included for qualitative synthesis while seven were included for quantitative synthesis. The risk of bias of all included articles was low. The results based on SUCRA values revealed the IAT shock wave-enhanced emission photoacoustic streaming (100%) resulted in the greatest reduction of the volume of AHTD from mesial roots of mandibular molars. Ranking of the other IATs was as follows: photon-induced photoacoustic streaming (87%), laser-activated irrigation (79.3%), XP EndoFinisher (71.2%), ultrasonically activated irrigation (59.6%), apical negative pressure (42.3%), EasyClean (37.4%), EDDY (26.2%), EndoActivator (24.2%), self-adjusting file (11.6%) and needle irrigation (11.3%).Conclusion None of the IATs rendered the root canals completely free of AHTD. The laser-activated irrigation groups fared better than all other interventions in reducing AHTD from the mesial roots of mandibular molars. The confidence rating ranged from low to high for indirect evidence and moderate to high for mixed evidence. Results must be interpreted with caution due to the laboratory nature of the included studies.
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.