ArticleDentistry journal2024
Debris and Smear Layer Removal in Curved Root Canals: A Comparative Study of Ultrasonic and Sonic Irrigant Activation Techniques.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of maintaining apical patency on cleaning potentials of XP-endo Finisher in curved root canals.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- The effect of supplementary methods on root canal cleaning: a study using 3D-printed mandibular molar models.Odontology · 2026Article
- Comparative analysis of dentinal tubule penetration: effects of irrigation activation methods and root canal sealers: in-vitro study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Comparison of Debridement Efficacy of Two Irrigating Systems Endovac and Conventional Needle in Primary Tooth Root Canals: AnInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2024Article
- Efficacy of the Orifice-Level Passive Ultrasonic Activation Technique in Removing Debris from Mandibular Molars: An Ex Vivo Study.Journal of lasers in medical sciences · 2024Article
- Article
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
The aim of this study was to compare the cleaning efficacy of three irrigant activation devices with a control of non-activated syringe and needle irrigation in curved root canals. Sixty human curved roots were endodontically prepared and divided into four groups (n = 15) with similar root curvature distributions. Final irrigation using 4% NaOCl was performed with a syringe and needle (30-G) alone, or with Eddy sonic powered irrigation system (polymeric tip #0.25/0.06), Endosonic ultrasonic activation (polymeric tip #0.25/0.03), or Irrisafe ultrasonic activation (stainless-steel tip, #0.25/0.00). SEM was used to evaluate cleaning efficacy, employing five-score systems for debris and smear layer. While no significant difference in debris removal was observed between Endosonic or Irrisafe activation and non-activated irrigation, Eddy sonic powered irrigation system significantly improved debris removal in the apical third of curved root canals. Smear layer removal was effective in coronal and mid-root sections for all groups but less so in the apical third. Thus, Eddy sonic powered irrigation system demonstrated higher efficacy in removing debris from the apical third of curved root canals compared with non-activated syringe and needle irrigation. However, all three irrigant activation systems exhibited no difference from the non-activated control in smear layer removal.
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.