Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36932445›Full record

SynthesisBMC oral health2023

Cleaning efficacy of EDDY versus ultrasonically-activated irrigation in root canals: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Xiaojun Chu, Shuting Feng, Weiqing Zhou, Shuaimei Xu, Xiongqun Zeng

Open access · goldFull text readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Comparative Evaluation of Polymeric and Metal Ultrasonic Tips for the Removal of Calcium Hydroxide From Root Canals.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xiaojun ChuDepartment of Endodontics, Stomatological Hospital, School of Stomatology, Southern Medical University, No 366 Jiangnan Avenue South, Guangzhou, 510280, Guangdong, China.
Shuting FengDepartment of Endodontics, Stomatological Hospital, School of Stomatology, Southern Medical University, No 366 Jiangnan Avenue South, Guangzhou, 510280, Guangdong, China.
Weiqing ZhouDepartment of Endodontics, Stomatological Hospital, School of Stomatology, Southern Medical University, No 366 Jiangnan Avenue South, Guangzhou, 510280, Guangdong, China.
Shuaimei XuDepartment of Endodontics, Stomatological Hospital, School of Stomatology, Southern Medical University, No 366 Jiangnan Avenue South, Guangzhou, 510280, Guangdong, China.
Xiongqun ZengDepartment of Endodontics, Stomatological Hospital, School of Stomatology, Southern Medical University, No 366 Jiangnan Avenue South, Guangzhou, 510280, Guangdong, China. xiongqun_zeng@163.com.
Southern Medical University · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUltrasonically-activated irrigation (UAI) is effective in root canal irrigation but may damage canal walls. EDDY is a sonic activation system with flexible working tips that cause no harm to dentinal walls. This review explores the intracanal cleaning efficacy of EDDY compared with UAI in vitro.

methodsThe systematic review was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42021235826). A literature search was conducted in six electronic databases. In vitro studies that compared the removal of smear layer, debris, soft tissue or microbes in root canals between EDDY and UAI were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were performed. Meta-analyses were conducted on smear layer removal and debris elimination with the standardized mean difference (SMD). Heterogeneity was measured using the I

results19 articles were included in this systematic review and 7 articles were included in meta-analyses. Meta-analyses on smear layer removal showed unimportant differences between EDDY and UAI at any canal third (coronal [SMD = 0.08, 95% confidence interval (95%CI): -0.29 to 0.45; p = 0.44, I

conclusionsLimited evidence indicated that EDDY was comparable to UAI in removing smear layer, debris, soft tissue and microbes ex vivo. Considering UAI may damage canal walls, EDDY might be a substitute for UAI in irrigation activation. But more randomized clinical trials are required to explore the clinical extrapolation of the results in this review.

Indexed as

Dental Pulp CavitySmear LayerHumansMicroscopy, Electron, ScanningRoot Canal IrrigantsRoot Canal PreparationSodium HypochloriteTherapeutic IrrigationRoot Canal IrrigantsSodium HypochloriteEDDYIrrigationSystematic reviewUltrasonic activation

Identifiers

PMID36932445
PMCPMC10024384
OpenAlexW4327811408

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
reference markers read21
measurements read32
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.