Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35406207›Full record

ReviewPolymers2022

Biofilm in Endodontics: In Vitro Cultivation Possibilities, Sonic-, Ultrasonic- and Laser-Assisted Removal Techniques and Evaluation of the Cleaning Efficacy.

Uros Josic, Claudia Mazzitelli, Tatjana Maravic, Ales Fidler, Lorenzo Breschi, Annalisa Mazzoni

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Polymers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
6.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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.

NCT05959629 naterminatednot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

A Clinical Use of Er,Cr:YSGG Laser: an Anti-biofilm Treatment

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of PennsylvaniaRan2023 to 2024Enrolled56ConditionsEndodontic Disease, Root Canal InfectionArmsWaterlase Express™, BIOLASE®, Sodium Hypochlorite
NCT07387809 naactive not recruitingnot on this mapstarted 2024, after this paper: background citation

Clinical Investigation of the Effectiveness of Laser-activated Photoacoustic Flow in One-visit Revision of Teeth With Apical Periodontitis

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of ZagrebRan2024 to 2026Enrolled60ConditionsApical PeriodontitisArmsLaser activated irrigation, Sound-activated irrigation
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 35 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Uros JosicDepartment for Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna-Alma Mater Studiorum, 40139 Bologna, Italy.
Claudia MazzitelliDepartment for Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna-Alma Mater Studiorum, 40139 Bologna, Italy.
Tatjana MaravicDepartment for Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna-Alma Mater Studiorum, 40139 Bologna, Italy.
Ales FidlerDental Clinic, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ljubljana, 1000 Ljubljana, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0003-3916-1111
Lorenzo BreschiDepartment for Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna-Alma Mater Studiorum, 40139 Bologna, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-7621-226X
Annalisa MazzoniDepartment for Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna-Alma Mater Studiorum, 40139 Bologna, Italy.
University of Bologna · ITUniversity of Ljubljana · SI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Incomplete and inadequate removal of endodontic biofilm during root canal treatment often leads to the clinical failure. Over the past decade, biofilm eradication techniques, such as sonication of irrigant solutions, ultrasonic and laser devices have been investigated in laboratory settings. This review aimed to give an overview of endodontic biofilm cultivation methods described in papers which investigated sonic-, ultrasonic- and Er:Yag laser-assisted biofilm removal techniques. Furthermore, the effectiveness of these removal techniques was discussed, as well as methods used for the evaluation of the cleaning efficacy. In general, laser assisted agitation, as well as ultrasonic and sonic activation of the irrigants provide a more efficient biofilm removal compared to conventional irrigation conducted by syringe/needle. The choice of irrigant is an important factor for reducing the bacterial contamination inside the root canal, with water and saline being the least effective. Due to heterogeneity in methods among the reviewed studies, it is difficult to compare sonic-, ultrasonic- and Er:Yag laser-assisted techniques among each other and give recommendations for the most efficient method in biofilm removal. Future studies should standardize the methodology regarding biofilm cultivation and cleaning methods, root canals with complex morphology should be introduced in research, with the aim of simulating the clinical scenario more closely.

Indexed as

biofilmendodonticsirrigationlasersonicultrasonic

Identifiers

PMID35406207
PMCPMC9003475
OpenAlexW4220905029

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.