ArticleMedicine and pharmacy reports2023
Comparative evaluation of canal cleanliness at apical third using Self-Adjusting File and Wave One File with different irrigants: an
Article in Medicine and pharmacy reports, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of maintaining apical patency on cleaning potentials of XP-endo Finisher in curved root canals.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate the cleaning ability of two single-file rotary systems- Self-Adjusting File (SAF) and Wave one (WO) systems in removing the smear layer using sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) + ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) and NaOCl + Qmix as irrigants at apical one-third of the root canal. Methods: Forty extracted human mandibular premolars were selected and working length was determined. The canal was manually instrumented up to a number 25 size K-file. The roots were divided into the following groups with 10 samples each - Group 1 using SAF: Group 1a- 3% NaOCl + 17% EDTA, Group 1b- 3% NaOCl + Qmix. Group2 using WO: Group 2a- 3% NaOCl + 17% EDTA, Group 2b- 3% NaOCl + Qmix. In the SAF group, the irrigation was performed continuously using the special irrigation apparatus. In the WO group, syringe irrigation was done followed by final irrigant activation using passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI). The roots were sectioned longitudinally and subjected to scanning electron microscopic (SEM) examination. The amount of smear layer was evaluated using a five score index at the apical third level. Statistical analysis was performed using the Chi-square test. Results: Group 1 (SAF) showed better canal cleanliness at apical third compared to Group 2 (WO) with both irrigant combinations and the results were statistically significant ( Conclusion: Within the limitation of this study, SAF in combination with 3% NaOCl + Qmix or 3% NaOCl + 17% EDTA should be used for removing smear layer in critical areas of the root canal.
Indexed as
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.