SynthesisOdontology2025
Smear layer removal and antimicrobial efficacy of chitosan as a root canal irrigant: a systematic review of in-vitro studies.
Synthesis in Odontology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Chitosan's Ability to Remove the Smear Layer-A Systematic Review of Ex Vivo Studies.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Pooled it
- Efficacy of Continuous Chelation With Etidronate And Sequential Chelation With Chitosan On Bacterial Reduction In Teeth With Pulp Necrosis: A Double-Blind, Randomized Clinical Trial.European endodontic journal · 2025Trial
- Assessment of Endocyn on Dental Pulp Stem Cells (DPSCs): A Pilot Study of Endodontic Irrigant Effects.Methods and protocols · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review was designed to answer the following question: Does chitosan provide better smear layer removal and antimicrobial efficacy than other root canal irrigants? A literature search was done using electronic databases PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, EBSCO host, Grey Literature Report, and Open Grey from inception to June 18, 2024. The reference lists of included articles were also hand-searched. Two reviewers independently assessed the studies' eligibility based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria and performed data extraction. Two reviewers independently evaluated the risk of bias in the selected studies. The search retrieved 2330 studies. After analysis, 36 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria and were included, with 19 involving smear layer removal, 16 involving antibacterial efficacy, and 1 involving both. The overall risk of bias of the included studies was medium. Chitosan removed the smear layer more effectively than citric acid and acetic acid, similar to MTAD and Qmix, with conflicting results against EDTA. In addition, chitosan demonstrated comparable antibacterial efficacy to chlorhexidine, propolis, and photodynamic therapy but was less effective than sodium hypochlorite. Based on available evidence, it was found that chitosan provided better smear layer removal and antimicrobial efficacy than most root canal irrigants compared in this systematic review. There was substantial heterogeneity in the methodology of included studies. As a result, this review highly recommends further research using standardized methods to assess the effectiveness of chitosan as a root canal irrigant in in-vitro studies to validate its clinical use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39302543What 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.