Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35318365›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2022

Comparison of GentleWave system and passive ultrasonic irrigation with minimally invasive and conventional instrumentation against LPS in infected root canals.

Johnathan P Velardi, Theeb A Alquria, Rayyan A Alfirdous, Bruna J M Corazza, Ana P M Gomes, Eduardo G Silva, Ina L Griffin, Patricia A Tordik, Frederico C Martinho

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Johnathan P VelardiDivision of Endodontics, Department of Advanced Oral Sciences and Therapeutics, University of Maryland, School of Dentistry, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Theeb A AlquriaDivision of Endodontics, Department of Advanced Oral Sciences and Therapeutics, University of Maryland, School of Dentistry, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Rayyan A AlfirdousDivision of Endodontics, Department of Advanced Oral Sciences and Therapeutics, University of Maryland, School of Dentistry, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Bruna J M CorazzaDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Endodontic Division, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Institute of Science and Technology, São José dos Campos, Brazil.
Ana P M GomesDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Endodontic Division, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Institute of Science and Technology, São José dos Campos, Brazil.
Eduardo G SilvaDepartment of Social and Pediatric Dentistry, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University (Unesp), Institute of Science and Technology, São José dos Campos, Brazil.
Ina L GriffinDivision of Endodontics, Department of Advanced Oral Sciences and Therapeutics, University of Maryland, School of Dentistry, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Patricia A TordikDivision of Endodontics, Department of Advanced Oral Sciences and Therapeutics, University of Maryland, School of Dentistry, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Frederico C MartinhoDivision of Endodontics, Department of Advanced Oral Sciences and Therapeutics, University of Maryland, School of Dentistry, Baltimore, MD, USA. fmartinho@umaryland.edu.
University of Maryland, Baltimore · USUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study compared the effectiveness of GentleWave system (GWS) and passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) in removing lipopolysaccharides (LPS) from infected root canals after minimally invasive (MIT) and conventional instrumentation (CIT) techniques. Sixty first premolars with two roots were inoculated with fluorescent LPS conjugate (Alexa Fluor 594). Of those, twelve were dentin pretreated, inoculated with fluorescent LPS conjugate, and submitted to confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) to validate the LPS-infection model. Forty-eight teeth were randomly divided into treatment groups: GWS + MIT, GWS + CIT, PUI + MIT, and PUI + CIT (all, n = 12). Teeth were instrumented with Vortex Blue rotary file size 15/0.04 for MIT and 35/0.04 for CIT. Samples were collected before (s1) and after a root canal procedure (s2) and after cryogenically ground the teeth (s3) for intraradicular LPS analysis. LPS were quantified with LAL assay (KQCL test). GWS + MIT and GWS + CIT were the most effective protocols against LPS, with no difference between them (p > 0.05). PUI + CIT was more effective than PUI + MIT (p < 0.05) but less effective than GWS + MIT and GWS + CIT. GWS was the most effective protocol against LPS in infected root canals using MIT and CIT techniques.

Indexed as

Root Canal IrrigantsRoot Canal PreparationUltrasonic WavesDental Pulp CavityHumansLipopolysaccharidesSodium HypochloriteToothLipopolysaccharidesRoot Canal IrrigantsSodium Hypochlorite

Identifiers

PMID35318365
PMCPMC8940914
OpenAlexW4221081598

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.