Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36158426›Full record

ArticleCureus2022

Assessment of the Sterility of New Endodontic Files Received From the Manufacturer Using Microbial Culture and Scanning Electron Microscopic Analysis: An In Vitro Study.

Khalid A Merdad, Faisal T Alghamdi

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cureus, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Khalid A MerdadEndodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, SAU.
Faisal T AlghamdiOral Biology, Faculty of Dentistry, King Abdulaziz University, Jeddah, SAU.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background As endodontic hand files are essential tools for root canal instrumentation and treatment, these instruments have been a constant source of debate regarding whether to reuse them or use them just once. The aim of this in vitro study is to evaluate the sterility of five brands' new endodontic files received from manufacturers without sterilization before clinical use via microbial culture (bacteria and fungi) and bioburden using scanning electron microscopic (SEM) analysis. Methodology This study included 25 K-type hand files with equal numbers from five brand groups (n=5; groups 1 to 5), named Tia Dent, Prevalent, Mani, Thomas, and Dentsply, respectively. The new files were exposed to microbial culture prior to clinical use and SEM analyses. A Fisher's exact test was performed to compare the differences in contamination among the five tested groups. Results In the SEM, all the five brand groups showed one contaminated file out of five files (20%). Fisher's exact test findings revealed statistically significant variations between the five brand groups, as nine out of 25 (36%) files of the tested groups had positive contamination in the microbial culture experiment. Bacterial contamination was present in three (60%) of the five Tia Dent group files, four (80%) in the Prevalent group files, and two (40%) in the Mani group files. Those with fungal contamination were one (33%) in the Tia Dent group and one (25%) in the Prevalent group (P=0.027). The bacterial culture showed that 100% of the new K-files tested negative in both the Thomas and Dentsply groups. Conclusions This study concluded that there was a bioburden on new endodontic K-type hand files of different brand groups before sterilization or when immediately used.

Indexed as

cleaningendodontic filesinfection controlnew filessterilization

Identifiers

PMID36158426
PMCPMC9484785

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.