Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37771362›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2023

Efficacy of Different Irrigant Activation Systems on Debris and Smear Layer Removal: A Scanning Electron Microscopy Evaluation.

Ronald Wigler, Moran Herteanu, Yuval Wilchfort, Anda Kfir

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of dentistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
11citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

11 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ronald WiglerDepartment of Endodontology, The Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3522-2194
Moran HerteanuThe Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4122-6906
Yuval WilchfortThe Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8547-3234
Anda KfirDepartment of Endodontology, The Goldschleger School of Dental Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6952-4150
Tel Aviv University · IL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Irrigation is an essential component of root canal treatment to enable cleaning beyond the reach of mechanical instruments. The study aimed to assess and compare the efficacy of different final irrigation protocols, including sonic- and ultrasonic-powered irrigant-activation systems, on debris and smear layer removal in the coronal, middle, and apical thirds of straight oval root canals. Materials and Methods: Straight oval root canals of 60 human mandibular incisors were prepared to size 40.04 and divided into four groups ( Results: None of the final irrigation protocols completely removed all debris and smear layer from all root canals. When the syringe and needle were used without activation, more debris and smear layer were found in the apical third of the canals. Activation of the final irrigant with each of the three devices significantly reduced the presence of debris in the apical third, compared to the syringe and needle final irrigation, with no difference among the three activation devices. Eddy and irrisafe activation also significantly reduced the residual smear layer in the apical third, compared to syringe and needle alone, while the reduction in the remaining smear layer by endosonic activation did not reach the significance level. Conclusions: Removal of debris and smear layer from the apical part of the root canal by syringe and needle irrigation alone may be significantly improved by using sonic or ultrasonic activation of the final irrigant. Endosonic activation was less effective in removal of smear layer from the apical part of the canals compared to the other two activation systems.

Identifiers

PMID37771362
PMCPMC10533223
OpenAlexW4386883300

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.