Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36681702›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2023

Comparison of conventional and contemporary root canal disinfection protocols against bacteria, lipoteichoic acid (LTA), and lipopolysaccharide (LPS).

Theeb A Alquria, Rayyan A Alfirdous, Swati Gupta, Mauro P Santamaria, Ingrid F Santamaria, Ana P M Gomes, Naiara Tiradentes, Eduardo G Silva, Frederico C Martinho

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Correlation Between LPS and LTA Levels With Clinical Features in Secondary Endodontic Infections.Australian endodontic journal : the journal of the Australian Society of Endodontology Inc · 2025
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  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

9 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.

Theeb A AlquriaDepartment of Advanced Oral Sciences and Therapeutics, School of Dentistry, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Rayyan A AlfirdousDepartment of Advanced Oral Sciences and Therapeutics, School of Dentistry, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Swati GuptaDepartment of Advanced Oral Sciences and Therapeutics, School of Dentistry, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Mauro P SantamariaCollege of Dentistry, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, USA.
Ingrid F SantamariaDepartment of General Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Ana P M GomesEndodontic Division, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University (Unesp), São José dos Campos, Brazil.
Naiara TiradentesEndodontic Division, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University (Unesp), São José dos Campos, Brazil.
Eduardo G SilvaDepartment of Social and Pediatric Dentistry, Institute of Science and Technology, Institute of Science and Technology, São Paulo State University (Unesp), São José dos Campos, Brazil.
Frederico C MartinhoDepartment of Advanced Oral Sciences and Therapeutics, School of Dentistry, University of Maryland, Baltimore, MD, USA. fmartinho@umaryland.edu.
University of Maryland, Baltimore · USUniversidade Estadual Paulista (Unesp) · BRImam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University · SAUniversity of Kentucky · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study devised a dual-species biofilm model to investigate bacteria, lipoteichoic acid (LTA), and lipopolysaccharide (LPS) simultaneously, and compared the efficacy of conventional and contemporary disinfection protocols. Seventy single-rooted mandibular premolars were included. Fourteen teeth were negative control, and 56 teeth were infected with 3-week-old E. faecalis and E. coli GFP biofilm. Fourteen/56 teeth were positive control, with seven teeth processed for CLSM analysis and seven teeth sampled with paper points (PPs) and cryogenically ground for bacterial, LTA, and LPS analyses. Forty-two teeth were randomly divided into three groups: GWS (GentleWave system) + MIT (minimally invasive technique), PUI (passive ultrasonic irrigation) + CIT (conventional instrumentation technique), and XP-EF (XP-endo Finisher) + CIT (All, n = 14). Samples were collected before (s1) and after disinfection (s2) with PPs and after cryogenically ground (s3). CFUs were counted, and LTA and LPS were quantified with LTA-ELISA and LAL assay, respectively. XP-EF was as effective as PUI (p > 0.05). GWS + MIT was the most effective disinfection protocol against bacteria, LTA, and LPS (p < 0.05). In conclusion, PUI, XP-EF, and GWS were highly effective against bacteria, LTA, and LPS, with GWS being the most effective.

Indexed as

Dental Pulp CavityLipopolysaccharidesRoot Canal PreparationBacteriaDisinfectionEscherichia coliHumansRandom AllocationRoot Canal IrrigantsSodium HypochloriteTeichoic AcidsLipopolysaccharideslipoteichoic acidRoot Canal IrrigantsSodium HypochloriteTeichoic Acids

Identifiers

PMID36681702
PMCPMC9867776
OpenAlexW4317660890

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.