ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
Elimination of E. faecalis with NaOCl versus chlorhexidine gluconate from primary molar root canal systems: an ex vivo model study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Protocols to evaluate the antibacterial and irrigation efficacy of new root canal irrigants: A systematic review of ex vivo studies.The Japanese dental science review · 2026Review
- Novel approaches involving curcumin in endodontic and periodontal diseases: a scoping review.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Antimicrobial efficacy of pineapple extract Bromelain againstJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025Review
- Comparative evaluation of root canal irrigants againstBioinformation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis ex vivo human study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of NaOCl and chlorhexidine gluconate (CHG) irrigations in eliminating Enterococcus faecalis from the RCS of primary molars. MATERIALS AND
methodsDisinfected extracted primary molars were inoculated with E. faecalis for 24 h. Then, the RCS samples were then irrigated with either 2.5% NaOCl, 0.2% and 2% CHG, or sham saline. The samples were collected immediately after irrigation; and 24 h later, the bacterial viability and counts were measured using blood agar and qRT-PCR, respectively. Histological sections were used to measure E. faecalis penetration and viability in dentin tubules using fluorescence microscopy.
resultsThe recovery of viable E. faecalis after the irrigation of the primary molars showed more significant bactericidal effects of NaOCl and 0.2% and 2% CHG than of saline. Immediately after the irrigation, the NaOCl group showed the greatest reduction in E. faecalis; and 24 h later, all the groups had lower viable E. faecalis than the saline control. The bacterial penetration was also lowest in the NaOCl group, although there was no difference in bacterial viability in the tubules between the groups.
conclusionIn primary teeth, NaOCl and CHG showed similar degrees of bacterial elimination efficacy in terms of E.faecalis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Within the limitations of this study, NaOCl and CHG have the similar ability to perform endodontic irrigation of primary ex vivo teeth regarding the elimination of E.faecalis, but NaOCl penetrates dentin tubules better.
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.