ArticleIranian endodontic journal2024
Reducing Apical Bacterial Extrusion: The Impact of Reciproc File Size and Irrigation Technique.
Article in Iranian endodontic journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chemical and antimicrobial profiling of glycolic and etidronic acid as endodontic irrigants.Odontology · 2026Article
- Do instrument kinematics and the apical preparation limit influence canal disinfection and bacterial extrusion?Odontology · 2025Article
- Quantitative Assessment of Apically Extruded Debris During Retreatment Procedures Using Three Nickel-Titanium Rotary Systems: An In Vitro Comparative Study.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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: This study used different irrigation techniques to compare the levels of apical bacterial extrusion during the preparation of root canals with a reciprocating instrument widely used in endodontics, the Reciproc files 25/0.08 and 40/0.06. Materials and Methods: The irrigation techniques employed were conventional syringe irrigation and passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI); the latter, with one or two activation cycles. Seventy extracted mandibular human premolars were contaminated with Results: The CFU/mL count indicated that the instrumentation with Reciproc 25/0.08 was associated with the highest bacterial extrusion, mainly when PUI was performed ( Conclusion: All the instrumentation techniques caused bacterial extrusion through the apical foramen; however, the largest file size of the Reciproc 40/0.06 groups was associated with less apical bacterial extrusion.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39086717PMC11287038What 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.