Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35682452›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Herbal Agents versus Ethylene Diamine Tetra Acetic Acid on Removal of the Smear Layer-A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies.

Kavalipurapu Venkata Teja, Krishnamachari Janani, Abdullah Ali Alqahtani, Ali Robaian, Feras Alhalabi, Khalid A Merdad, Mohammad Khursheed Alam, Deepti Shrivastava, Jerry Jose, Kumar Chandan Srivastava

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

10 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Kavalipurapu Venkata TejaDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Mamata Institute of Dental Sciences, Bachupally, Hyderabad 500090, Telangana, India.ORCID 0000-0003-0123-8873
Krishnamachari JananiDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, SRM Institute of Science and Technology, SRM Dental College, Chennai 600089, Tamil Nadu, India.
Abdullah Ali AlqahtaniDepartment of Conservative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Alkharj 11942, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-1529-3438
Ali RobaianDepartment of Conservative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Alkharj 11942, Saudi Arabia.
Feras AlhalabiDepartment of Conservative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Alkharj 11942, Saudi Arabia.
Khalid A MerdadEndodontic Department, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah 80200, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-1832-0606
Mohammad Khursheed AlamDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Jouf University, Sakaka 72345, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0001-7131-1752
Deepti ShrivastavaDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Jouf University, Sakaka 72345, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-1073-9920
Jerry JosePrivate Practice, Ernakulam District, Aluva 683106, Kerala, India.ORCID 0000-0003-4555-7171
Kumar Chandan SrivastavaOral Medicine and Radiology, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery and Diagnostic Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jouf University, Sakaka 72345, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-5969-6810
Jouf University · SAPrince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University · SAKing Abdulaziz University · SASRM Institute of Science and Technology · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This systematic review aimed to compare the efficacy of herbal agents with ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) in removing the smear layer during root canal instrumentation. The research question in the present study was to assess: "Is there a significant difference in reducing smear layer comparing EDTA and herbal agents?" Electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science) were searched from their start dates to April 2022 using strict inclusion and exclusion criteria, and reviewed following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guidelines. Only in vitro studies comparing herbal agents with EDTA were included in the current systematic review. Two reviewers independently assessed the included articles. A total of 625 articles were obtained from an electronic database. Eighteen papers were included for review of the full text, out of which, ten papers were excluded because they did not meet the inclusion criteria. Finally, eight articles were included in the systematic review. The present systematic review considered only in vitro studies; hence, the result cannot be completely translated to strict clinical conditions. The results of the present systematic review have shown that

Indexed as

Smear LayerAcetic AcidChelating AgentsEdetic AcidEthylenesHumansMicroscopy, Electron, ScanningRoot Canal PreparationSodium HypochloriteAcetic AcidChelating AgentsEdetic AcidEthylenesSodium HypochloritedisinfectionEDTAendodonticsherbal agents irrigantsnatural componentsroot canal treatmentsmear layer

Identifiers

PMID35682452
PMCPMC9180677
OpenAlexW4281771267

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.