ArticleBMC oral health2024
Sonic-assisted antibacterial photodynamic therapy: a strategy for enhancing lateral canal disinfection.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chitosan-coated gold nanostars with photothermal activity for enhanced disinfection efficacy of sodium hypochlorite in antibacterial-based root canal therapy.BMC chemistry · 2026Article
- Using photodynamic therapy for root canal disinfection during root canal therapy.Journal of dental sciences · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBacterial infections in lateral canals pose challenges for root canal treatment. This in vitro study aims to evaluate the antibacterial efficacy of sonic-assisted methylene blue mediated antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (MB-aPDT) against Enterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis) in infected lateral canals.
methodsSixty-five premolars infected with E. faecalis in lateral canals were randomly divided into five groups (n = 13) and treated with : (1) 5.25% NaOCl (positive control); (2) Saline (negative control); (3) Sonic-assisted MB-aPDT; (4) 3% NaOCl + MB-aPDT; (5) 3% NaOCl + sonic-assisted MB-aPDT, respectively. The antibacterial efficacy was evaluated by the colony- counting method (CCM) and scanning electronic microscope (SEM).
resultsBoth 5.25% NaOCl and the 3% NaOCl + sonic-assisted MB-aPDT exhibited the most effective while comparable antibacterial effects without significant statistical difference (P > 0.05). Furthermore, the antibacterial effect of the 3% NaOCl + MB-aPDT group was significantly higher compared to that of the sonic-assisted MB-aPDT group (P < 0.05). The SEM results demonstrated notable morphological alterations in E. faecalis across all experimental groups, except for the negative control group.
conclusionThe concentration of NaOCl can be reduced to a safe level while preserving its antibacterial efficacy through the synergism with the sonic-assisted MB-aPDT in this study.
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.