ReviewRestorative dentistry & endodontics2023
Disinfectant effectiveness of chlorhexidine gel compared to sodium hypochlorite: a systematic review with meta-analysis.
Review in Restorative dentistry & endodontics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The conundrum of current endodontic disinfection strategies in microbial load reduction: a scoping review.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- In Vitro Evaluation of Disinfectants on Gutta-Percha Cones: Antimicrobial Efficacy AgainstJournal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Effectiveness of Irrigation Protocols in Endodontic Therapy: An Umbrella Review.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- Comparative Evaluation of Disinfection Protocols for Dental Impressions in Prosthodontics.Cureus · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the disinfectant ability of chlorhexidine (CHX) gel and sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl). Systematic searches were conducted from inception until December 8th, 2022 (MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase, and Grey Literature databases). Only randomized clinical trials were included. The revised Cochrane risk of bias tools for randomized trials were used to assess the quality of studies. Meta-analyses were performed. The overall quality of evidence was assessed through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation tool. Six studies were included. Five had a low risk of bias and 1 had some concerns. Three studies assessed bacterial reduction. Two were included in the meta-analysis for bacterial reduction (mean difference, 75.03 [confidence interval, CI, -271.15, 421.22],
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.