Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36294374›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical medicine2022

Micro-CT Evaluation of Different Root Canal Irrigation Protocols on the Removal of Accumulated Hard Tissue Debris: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Ailin Liang, Luo Huang, Baoyu Li, Yihua Huang, Xiaoyan Zhou, Xufang Zhang, Qimei Gong

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

7 authors.

Ailin LiangHospital of Stomatology, Sun Yat-sen University, No. 56, Lingyuan West Road, Guangzhou 510055, China.ORCID 0000-0002-7634-8260
Luo HuangHospital of Stomatology, Sun Yat-sen University, No. 56, Lingyuan West Road, Guangzhou 510055, China.
Baoyu LiHospital of Stomatology, Sun Yat-sen University, No. 56, Lingyuan West Road, Guangzhou 510055, China.
Yihua HuangHospital of Stomatology, Sun Yat-sen University, No. 56, Lingyuan West Road, Guangzhou 510055, China.
Xiaoyan ZhouFaculty of Medicine and Health, School of Dentistry, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Xufang ZhangHospital of Stomatology, Sun Yat-sen University, No. 56, Lingyuan West Road, Guangzhou 510055, China.
Qimei GongHospital of Stomatology, Sun Yat-sen University, No. 56, Lingyuan West Road, Guangzhou 510055, China.

Funding

Guangdong Financial Fund for High-Caliber Hospital Construction 174-2018-XMZC-0001-03-0125/A-01National Natural Science Foundation of China 81700957National Natural Science Foundation of China 81870750Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province 2019A1515011312Science and Technology Planning Project of Guangzhou 201904010051
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Accumulated hard tissue debris (AHTD) is an inevitable by-product during endodontic treatment and is difficult to remove completely using traditional syringe and needle irrigation (SNI). Adjunctive irrigation is proposed to assist the clean-up of AHTD. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the AHTD removal efficacy of different root canal irrigation devices using micro-computed tomography (Micro-CT). A literature search was carried out within the main scientific databases until 20 June 2022. All results were screened with detailed eligibility criteria. Eleven studies were included for analysis. SNI, passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), negative pressure systems, sonically activated irrigation (SAI), mechanical-activated system and laser-activated irrigation (LAI) were assessed. PUI is superior to SNI for debris removal and LAI has better AHTD removal performance than PUI. The negative pressure system and mechanical-activated system were proved to be less effective. Registration: PROSPERO (CRD42021273892).

Indexed as

accumulated hard tissue debris (AHTD)endodonticsmeta-analysismicro-CTroot canal irrigation

Identifiers

PMID36294374
PMCPMC9605157

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.