ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2022
Evaluation of antimicrobial activity against
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental 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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To evaluate the antimicrobial activity of the following chelating agents against Enterococcus faecalis using quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) analysis: 1% peracetic acid (PA), 1% peracetic acid with 0.1% cetrimide (PAC), and 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) activated by passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) or with Easy Clean (EC), all followed by 2.5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl). Material and Methods: A total of 80 permanent human mandibular premolars were randomly divided into eight experimental groups according to the chemical solution and agitation protocol used: Group PA + PUI; Group PA + EC; Group PAC + PUI; PAC + EC; group EDTA + PUI; EDTA + EC, all followed by 2.5% NaOCl; and two control groups with saline solution(NaCl): NaCl + PUI and NaCl + EC. Microbial samples were collected before (S1) and after the irrigation protocol (S2). Intracanal E. faecalis reduction analysis was performed by qPCR. Intragroup analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test for paired data, and intergroup analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon Mann-Whitney U test for independent samples. The significance level was set at Results: A significant difference was found between S1 and S2 in all groups except NaCl+ EC ( Conclusions: The activated chelating agents were effective against
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.