ArticleDentistry journal2024
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.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
(1) Background: This study aimed to evaluate how laser-activated irrigation (LAI) influences the retention of a fiber post when used before an endodontic filling, as well as after post space preparation. (2) Materials and Methods: Sixty freshly extracted human incisors were selected. The teeth were randomly assigned to three groups-CONVENTIONAL (CONV), PIPS or SWEEPS-and treated endodontically. Each group received irrigation with 1 × 5 mL EDTA (17%) and 3 × 5 mL NaOCl (5.25%). In the first group, the irrigants were not activated, while in the second and third group, LAI was adopted using PIPS and SWEEPS protocols (Lightwalker from Fotona, Ljubliana, Slovenia). After post space preparation, each group received the same irrigation protocol initially established. Sticky posts (everStick Post, GC AUSTRIA GmbH Swiss) were individually adapted to the corresponding post spaces and cemented using dual cure resin cement (Gradia Core, GC Austria GmbH Swiss). All specimens were vertically embedded into self-curing acrylate (Duracryl plus, Spofa Dent, Europe), and each was sectioned into three segments of type A and type B samples for debonding through push-out and pull-out tests. The results were statistically analyzed. (3) Results: The pull-out test showed the superiority of the SWEEPS group, with a mean fracture force of 133.0 ± 50.7 N, followed by the PIPS group, with 102 N, with a lower standard deviation of ± 34.5 N. The CONV group registered the lowest fracture force. Concerning the push-out test, the SWEEPS group showed superior shear stress in comparison to the other two groups (13.45 ± 4.29 MPa); the CONV group was inferior, with shear tension values of 8.31 ± 4.67 MPa. (4) Conclusions: It can be stated that the SWEEPS and PIPS protocols resulted in considerably higher fiber post retention than the conventional method, whereas the SWEEPS protocol was superior to the PIPS protocol.
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.