Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36143496›Full record

ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Comparative Study Assessing the Canal Cleanliness Using Automated Device and Conventional Syringe Needle for Root Canal Irrigation-An Ex-Vivo Study.

Keerthika Rajamanickam, Kavalipurapu Venkata Teja, Sindhu Ramesh, Abdulaziz S AbuMelha, Mazen F Alkahtany, Khalid H Almadi, Sarah Ahmed Bahammam, Krishnamachari Janani, Sahil Choudhari, Jerry Jose and 3 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Advanced Materials for Oral Application (Volume 2).Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

13 authors at 6 institutions in 2 countries.

Keerthika RajamanickamDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Chennai 600077, Tamil Nadu, India.
Kavalipurapu Venkata TejaDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Chennai 600077, Tamil Nadu, India.ORCID 0000-0003-0123-8873
Sindhu RameshDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Chennai 600077, Tamil Nadu, India.
Abdulaziz S AbuMelhaRestorative Dental Science Department, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha 62529, Saudi Arabia.
Mazen F AlkahtanyDepartment of RDS, Division of Endodontics, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11545, Saudi Arabia.
Khalid H AlmadiDepartment of RDS, Division of Endodontics, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11545, Saudi Arabia.
Sarah Ahmed BahammamDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, College of Dentistry, Taibah University, P.O. Box 344, Medina 42353, Saudi Arabia.
Krishnamachari JananiDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, SRM Dental College, SRM Institute of Science & Technology, Chennai 600089, Tamil Nadu, India.
Sahil ChoudhariDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Chennai 600077, Tamil Nadu, India.
Jerry JosePrivate Practice, Aluva, Ernakulam District, Kochi 683106, Kerala, India.ORCID 0000-0003-4555-7171
Kumar Chandan SrivastavaDepartment of Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery & Diagnostic Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jouf University, Sakaka 72388, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-5969-6810
Deepti ShrivastavaDepartment of Preventive Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Jouf University, Sakaka 72388, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-1073-9920
Shankargouda PatilDepartment of Maxillofacial Surgery and Diagnostic Sciences, Division of Oral Pathology, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0001-7246-5497
Saveetha University · INJouf University · SAKing Saud University · SAKing Khalid University · SASRM Institute of Science and Technology · INTaibah University · SA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The success of endodontic treatment relies on both apical and coronal sealing. To achieve a good three-dimensional seal, the removal of the smear layer becomes mandatory. This study aims to assess the difference in debris accumulation and smear layer formation while using automated root canal irrigation and conventional syringe needle irrigation. Single-rooted human mandibular premolar teeth (n = 30) which were indicated for orthodontic extractions were selected. An endodontic access cavity was prepared, and a glide path was created. Based on the irrigation protocol decided upon for the study, the teeth were randomly allocated into three study groups, namely Group 1, where the manual syringe needle irrigation method was adopted; Group 2, in which automated root canal irrigation was undertaken; and Group 3, in which teeth remained un-instrumented as it was considered the Control group. The teeth were decoronated at the cement-enamel junction (CEJ) and were subjected for scanning electron microscopy (SEM) examination. Debris and smear layers were viewed in 1000× magnification and scored. A statistically significant (p < 0.05) lower mean debris and smear layer score (p < 0.05) was observed in both study groups when compared with the control group. However, no significant difference (p > 0.05) in the debris and smear layer was observed between the manual syringe needle irrigation and automated irrigation, although automated irrigation devices can be a potential alternative. The present study concluded that the efficacy of smear layer removal remained the same with both automated irrigation and manual syringe irrigation.

Indexed as

automated root canal irrigationendodontic materialsmanual syringe needle irrigationroot canal treatmentsmear layer

Identifiers

PMID36143496
PMCPMC9504894
OpenAlexW4294839355

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.