Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37731794›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry

Comparative Evaluation of Intracanal Smear Layer Removal by Different Root Canal Irrigants: A Scanning Electron Microscope Study.

S Sudhakar, Nidhi Gupta, Natasha Ghambir, Rashi Singh, Divya Singh

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

S SudhakarDepartment of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Santosh Dental College, Santosh (Deemed to be University), Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3118-5066
Nidhi GuptaDepartment of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Santosh Dental College, Santosh (Deemed to be University), Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1086-1336
Natasha GhambirDepartment of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Santosh Dental College, Santosh (Deemed to be University), Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1301-0502
Rashi SinghDepartment of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Santosh Dental College, Santosh (Deemed to be University), Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1301-0502
Divya SinghDepartment of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Santosh Dental College, Santosh (Deemed to be University), Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4714-1217

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Aim: The purpose of the study is to compare and evaluate the efficacy of different root canal irrigants-100, 75, 50, and 25% Materials and methods: A total of 80 freshly extracted single-rooted teeth were collected and divided into 10 groups-group I: normal saline (negative control), group II: NaOCl with EDTA (positive control), group III: 100% Results: Microphotographs were assessed and showed that 100% Conclusion: This study showed that 100% How to cite this article: Sudhakar S, Gupta N, Ghambir N,

Indexed as

Apple cider vinegarNeem extractRoot canal irrigantsSodium hypochlorite

Identifiers

PMID37731794
PMCPMC10507302

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.