ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2022
Antibacterial Effect of Red Laser Therapy on
Article in International journal of dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
objectiveTo assess the antibacterial effect of red laser using different photosensitizers such as methylene blue and malachite green on monoradicular premolars contaminated with
methodsThis was an in vitro experimental study. Monoradicular premolars (44, 45, 34, and 35) were used, which were treated with ProTaper Next. After instrument change, irrigation, disinfection, and aspiration were performed with 2 ml of 4% NaOCl with a NaviTip 30°G needle (Ultradent, South Jordan, UT, USA). Group 1: RL + MB (red laser associated with methylene blue photosensitizer), group 2: RL + MG (red laser associated with malachite green photosensitizer), and group 3: control (no treatment). The
resultsGroup 1 had the lowest antibacterial contamination as it averaged only 530 ± 581.3 CFU/ml, while group 2 had the highest contamination with an average of 1990 ± 542.5 CFU/ml. Comparison revealed that there were statistically significant differences between the RL + MB and RL + MG groups (
conclusionsGroup 1 had the best antimicrobial potential because it presented the lowest contamination in CFU/ml of
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.