ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Comparative evaluation of different irrigating and irrigant activation system in removal of gutta-percha/sealer during retreatment: An in vitro Micro-CT study.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. 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 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of the study was to compare the efficacy of different irrigation and irrigant activation system used as an adjuvant to retreatment rotary files in removal of gutta-percha and sealer from endodontic retreatment using Micro-CT. Method: 64 extracted permanent maxillary central incisor teeth with single canal, were collected and decoronated to standard length of 16 mm. Instrumentation was done using rotary files and obturation was performed using GuttaCore and AH plus sealer. After setting of sealer, initial removal of filling material was performed using ProTaper universal retreatment files (D1, D2, D3). All 64 sample were randomised into four groups (n = 16) Group1: Endodontic syringe irrigation, Group 2: Passive Ultasonic Irrigation (PUI), Group 3: EndoActivator, and Group 4: EndoVac. Micro-CT scanning was performed after obturation, initial removal of filling material by retreatment file and after using experimental protocols of each group, and volume of remaining filling material was calculated using Dolphin software. Statistical analysis performed with one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey's post hoc. Results: A significant reduction in the volume of residual obturation material were found between each group. PUI was superior to the sonic (EndoActivator), negative pressure irrigation technique (EndoVac) and positive pressure irrigation at the coronal, middle third and apical third of the root canal. However, none of the supplementary techniques were able to completely remove the residual obturation material. Conclusion: PUI and EndoActivator were found better in remaining filling material removal, demonstrating clinically useful as supplementary technique in removing remaining obturation material during endodontic retreatment.
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.