Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36906530›Full record

Trial reportBMC oral health2023

Efficacy of different irrigant activation techniques for cleaning root canal anastomosis.

O K Montaser, D M Fayyad, N Abdelsalam

Open access · goldFull text readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC oral health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

O K MontaserDepartment of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt.
D M FayyadDepartment of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt.
N AbdelsalamDepartment of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Suez Canal University, Ismailia, Egypt. nelly_mohamed@dent.suez.edu.eg.
Suez Canal University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis study compared in vitro the anastomosis cleaning efficacy of different irrigant activation techniques at different levels; control group non-activation (NA), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) using Irrisafe, and EDDY sonic activation.

methodsSixty anastomosis-containing mesial roots of mandibular molars were mounted in resin, sectioned at 2, 4, and 6 mm from the apex. Then reassembled and instrumented in a copper cube. For the irrigation technique roots were randomly divided into 3 groups (n = 20): group 1: NA, group 2: Irrisafe, group 3: EDDY. Stereomicroscopic images of anastomoses were taken after instrumentation and after irrigant activation. ImageJ program was used to calculate the percentage of anastomosis cleanliness. The percentage of cleanliness was calculated before and after final irrigation within each group and were then compared using paired t-tests. Intergroup and intragroup analyses were performed to compare between different activation techniques at the same root canal level (2, 4 and 6 mm) (intergroup) and to evaluate if each technique had different cleanliness efficacy according to the root canal level (intragroup) using one-way analysis of variance and post hoc tests (p < 0.05).

resultsAll three irrigation techniques significantly improved anastomosis cleanliness (p < 0.001). Both activation techniques were significantly better than the control group at all levels. Intergroup comparison revealed that EDDY significantly achieved the best overall anastomosis cleanliness. The difference between EDDY and Irrisafe was significant in favor to EDDY at 2 mm and insignificant at 4 and 6 mm. The intragroup comparison showed that improvement in anastomosis cleanliness (i2-i1) in the needle irrigation without activation group (NA) was significantly higher in the apical 2 mm level compared to the 4 & 6 levels. While the difference in anastomosis cleanliness improvement (i2-i1) between levels in both Irrisafe and EDDY groups was insignificant.

conclusionsIrrigant activation improves anastomosis cleanliness. EDDY was the most efficient in cleaning anastomoses located in the critical apical part of the root canal. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Cleaning and disinfection of the root canal system followed by apical and coronal sealing is the key for healing or prevention of apical periodontitis. Remnants of debris and microorganisms retained within the anastomoses (isthmuses), or other root canal irregularities may lead to persistent apical periodontitis. Proper irrigation and activation are essential for cleaning root canal anastomoses.

Indexed as

Dental Pulp CavityPeriapical PeriodontitisAnastomosis, SurgicalHumansRoot Canal IrrigantsRoot Canal PreparationSodium HypochloriteTherapeutic IrrigationRoot Canal IrrigantsSodium HypochloriteAnastomosisEDDYFinal irrigationIsthmusPassive ultrasonic irrigation

Identifiers

PMID36906530
PMCPMC10007824
OpenAlexW4323924078

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read12
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.