SynthesisOral diseases2024
Antimicrobial efficacy of chitosan versus sodium hypochlorite: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Oral diseases, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Mapping risk of bias criteria in systematic reviews of in vitro endodontic studies: an umbrella review.Evidence-based dentistry · 2025Pooled it
- Antimicrobial efficacy of chitosan versus sodium hypochlorite: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Oral diseases · 2024Pooled it
- Evaluation of postoperative pain and antibacterial efficacy of nanochitosan and sodium hypochlorite in endodontics: A randomized controlled trial.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Natural Control of Food-Borne Pathogens Using Chitosan.Microorganisms · 2025Review
- Chitosan-Based Schiff Bases (CSBs) and Their Metal Complexes: Promising Antimicrobial Agents.Molecules (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis meta-analysis aimed to compare the antibacterial efficacy of chitosan/chitosan nanoparticles (Ch/Ch-NPs) versus sodium hypochlorite/chlorhexidine (NaOCl/CHX). MATERIALS AND
methodsA search was performed in four electronic databases until December 08, 2023. Studies with missing, unclear, and insufficient data sets were excluded. The included studies were assessed by two independent reviewers using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Quasi-Experimental Studies. The meta-analysis of standardized mean difference was performed using a random effects model. Additionally, funnel plots as well as Egger's regression intercept test were used to evaluate potential publication bias.
resultsA total of 426 samples were used in nine included studies. There was no difference in antibacterial efficacy between Ch/Ch-NPs-NaOCl (SMD: 0.005; 95% CI: -0.844-0.854; p = 0.990). However, the antibacterial efficacy of NaOCl was statistically more effective than Ch/Ch-NPs (SMD: 0.807; 95% CI: 0.015-1.599; p = 0.046) using the bacterial culture method, and Ch/Ch-NPs was statistically higher than NaOCl (SMD: -1.827; 95% CI: -2.720, -0.934; p < 0.000) using confocal laser scanning microscopy.
conclusionsCh/Ch-NPs may be an alternative to NaOCl against Enterococcus faecalis. The methods used in the in vitro studies evaluating the antibacterial efficacy of irrigation solutions against E. faecalis may have had an impact on the results.
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.