Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38214804›Full record

ArticleLasers in medical science2024

Comparison of the removal of intracanal medicaments used in regenerative endodontics from root canal system using needle, ultrasonic, sonic, and laser-activated irrigation systems.

Sıla Nur Usta, Berat Akın Erdem, Mustafa Gündoğar

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Lasers in medical science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Impact of EDTA Formulations and Activation Methods on Stem Cell Response, Antimicrobial Activity and Dentine Integrity: An In Vitro Study.Australian endodontic journal : the journal of the Australian Society of Endodontology Inc · 2026
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Sıla Nur UstaDepartment of Endodontics, Gulhane Faculty of Dentistry, University of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey. silandeniz29@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9513-0841
Berat Akın ErdemDepartment of Endodontics, Gulhane Faculty of Dentistry, University of Health Sciences, Ankara, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-0435-4578
Mustafa GündoğarDepartment of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Medipol, Istanbul, Turkey.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6394-0791
Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi · TRIstanbul Medipol University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the syringe-needle irrigation (SNI), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), EDDY, and shock wave-enhanced emission photoacoustic streaming (SWEEPS) techniques regarding calcium hydroxide and double antibiotic paste removal from the root canal in regenerative endodontic treatments. Eighty single-rooted human teeth were decoronated and enlarged up to #100 to stimulate the immature tooth model. Root canals were irrigated with 1.5% sodium hypochlorite followed by saline solution according to the regenerative endodontic treatment protocol. Dressed teeth were divided into 2 main groups regarding the used intracanal medicaments. Calcium hydroxide and double antibiotic paste were introduced to the canals, and teeth were stored for 3 weeks. Each medicament group was divided into 4 subgroups according to the activation techniques. Medicaments were removed using a 17% EDTA solution. Teeth were split longitudinally into two parts. The remaining medicaments were evaluated under a stereo microscope with a scoring system. Data were analyzed with the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Regardless of the used irrigation activation systems, there was no statistically significant difference between the removal of the CH and DAP from the root canal (P>0.05). While SWEEPS had the highest ability regarding the removal of intracanal medicaments, syringe-needle irrigation had the lowest (P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between PUI and EDDY (P>0.05). Complete removal of intracanal medicaments could not be achieved with any techniques. SWEEPS technology was more effective in removing intracanal medicaments in regenerative endodontic treatments compared to the sonic and ultrasonic irrigation activation systems.

Indexed as

Regenerative EndodonticsUltrasonicsAnti-Bacterial AgentsCalcium HydroxideDental Pulp CavityHumansLasersRoot Canal IrrigantsRoot Canal PreparationTherapeutic IrrigationAnti-Bacterial AgentsCalcium HydroxideRoot Canal IrrigantsCalcium hydroxideEDDYEndodonticsPassive ultrasonic irrigationSWEEPS

Identifiers

PMID38214804
PMCPMC10786972
OpenAlexW4390795705

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.