ArticlePloS one2024
Dual- or single rinse? The tubular sealer penetration of endodontic chelating agents.
Article in PloS one, 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.
- Influence of intracanal moisture on dentinal tubule infiltration of a calcium silicate-containing resin-based sealer assessed with confocal laser scanning microscopy.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Influence of Final Irrigation on Calcium Silicate-Based Sealer Dentinal Tubular Penetration: A Systematic Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Effects of phytic acid and etidronic acid using continuous and sequential chelation on the removal of smear layer, dentin microhardness, and push-out bond strength of calcium silicate-based cement.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of cetylpyridinium chloride-modified EDTA, sequential, and continuous chelation on smear layer removal and dentin erosion.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
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
introductionIn this study, we aimed to compare the effectiveness of various chelating agents, ethilenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), citric acid (CA), and etidronic acid (HEDP) mixed in two different forms, in removing the smear layer and promoting the penetration of an endodontic sealer into the dentinal tubules of extracted single-rooted teeth.
methodsThe study used 75 teeth divided into five groups: 17% EDTA, 10% CA, 9% HEDP + NaOCl, 9% HEDP + distilled water (DW), and a control (DW) group. Scanning electron microscopy was used to assess smear layer removal and confocal laser microscopy was used to evaluate tubular sealer penetration at different depths from the apical tip.
resultsSealer penetration was highest with 17% EDTA and 10% CA as compared with the other agents (p<0.001). At the cervical third, the sealer penetration for EDTA, HEDP + NaOCl, and HEDP + DW groups were significantly different than those in DW (p = 0.020). For the middle third, EDTA, CA, and HEDP + NaOCl groups were significantly higher than those of the DW group (p<0.001). Cervical-level values were significantly higher than apical-level values for HEDP + NaOCl, HEDP + DW, and DW (p<0.001). Smear layer removal was lower with 9% HEDP + DW than with 17% EDTA and 10% CA at all depths (p<0.001). A significancy in smear layer removal was observed between 10% CA and control (p = 0.015) in middle depth.
conclusionWithin the limitations of this study, highest values were seen in EDTA and CA in terms of sealer penetration and smear layer removal. In the light of these findings, the use of strong chelating agents highlights better clinical efficiency than dual-rinse or single HEDP irrigation.
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.