ArticleBDJ open2024
Impact of LASER activated irrigation on the retrievability of Guttaflow bioseal (in-vitro study).
Article in BDJ open, 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.
- Detecting Residual Root Canal Filling Material After Retreatment: Cone-Beam Computed Tomography and Digital Microscopy Compared with Microcomputed Tomography.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Retreatability of guttaflow bioseal in bulk or with main cone from root canals using ultrasonic, laser, and xp-endo finisher activated techniques.European oral research · 2026Article
- Investigating the Effect of PIPS Technique by Using Er,Cr: YSGG Irradiation for Sealer Removal in Endodontic Retreatment.European endodontic journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of diode LASER activated irrigation in the removal of GuttaFlow Bioseal root canal filling material during retreatment. MATERIALS AND SUBJECTS: Root canals of forty-five single-rooted human mandibular premolar teeth were prepared with ProTaper Universal rotary system and obturated with lateral condensation obturation technique using Gutta Percha and Roeko GuttaFlow Bioseal root canal sealer. All specimens were retreated with ProTaper Universal Retreatment System files then divided to three different groups according to the technique of activation of irrigation. Samples were sectioned, and the residual filling remnants were captured using digital camera attached to microscope. Data was collected by three different interpreters, to eliminate the subjectivity of the process, using the ImageJ Software. The mean value of the data was obtained and evaluated statistically. The significance level was set at P ≤ 0.05.
resultsThe remaining filling materials in the canals irrigated with ultrasonic activation (6.17 ± 1.42 at coronal level, 10.93 ± 1.91at middle level, and 14.58 ± 2.23 at apical level) were less than these irrigated with LASER activation (15.87 ± 3.78 at coronal level, 21.28 ± 4.44 at middle level, and 27.06 ± 2.68 at apical level). Maximum amount of remaining filling materials was present in the canals irrigated with passive side-vented syringe (23.07 ± 3.22 at coronal level, 38.09 ± 7.27 at middle level, and 34.24 ± 9.77 at apical level).
conclusionThe activation of irrigation techniques used were incapable of complete removal of filling material at root canal walls.
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.