ArticleJournal of dental sciences2024
Smear layer removal efficacy of different irrigation techniques in conservatively instrumented root canals.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 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.
- Laser-activated irrigation versus ultrasonic or syringe irrigation for smear layer and debris removal: AnBioinformation · 2026Article
- Cleaning efficacy and apical pressure in sonically-activated irrigation systems: Impact of tip vertical stroke.Journal of dental sciences · 2025Article
- Cleaning Effectiveness of QMix and EDTA When Activated with Different Techniques: An In Vitro Study.European endodontic journal · 2025Article
- Comparisons of the smear layer removal efficacy of dual-action irrigants and different activation techniques.Journal of dental sciences · 2025Article
- Article
- Photon-Induced Photo-Acoustic Streaming vs. Shock Wave-Enhanced Emission Photo-Acoustic Streaming-The Effect of Three Final Irrigation Protocols on the Bond Strength of an Individually Formed Fiber Post.Dentistry journal · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: Establishing effective irrigation methods is warranted to ensure the predictability of minimally invasive root canal instrumentation. This study aimed to compare the smear layer removal efficacy of different irrigation techniques in root canals instrumented with TruNatomy nickel-titanium rotary instruments. Materials and methods: Experiment 1: Extracted human mandibular incisors were instrumented using TruNatomy Shaping Files up to Small (#20/0.04), Prime (#26/0.04), or Medium (#36/0.03) (n = 17, each) and irrigated with EDTA, NaOCl, and again with EDTA using syringe irrigation (SI). Experiment 2: Extracted mandibular incisors were instrumented using TruNatomy Small and irrigated with EDTA and NaOCl as in Experiment 1, using (1) conventional laser-activated irrigation (LAI) with an erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet laser unit at 30 mJ/10 Hz (LAI 30/10) or 70 mJ/20 Hz (LAI 70/20), (2) photon-induced photoacoustic streaming (PIPS) (20 mJ/15 Hz), (3) ultrasonic-activated irrigation, or (4) SI (n = 13 each). Five additional canals served as negative controls (no irrigation). The smear layer on the canal wall was scored under scanning electron microscopy. Results: In Experiment 1, the TruNatomy Small group exhibited significantly higher smear layer scores compared to the other groups in the apical and middle thirds. In Experiment 2, the LAI 70/20 and PIPS groups demonstrated significantly lower smear layer scores compared to the LAI 30/10 and SI groups in the apical third. Conclusion: Conservative instrumentation using the TruNatomy Small reduced the cleaning efficacy of irrigation. However, PIPS performed satisfactory for smear layer removal without injury to the root canal wall.
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.