ArticleCureus2024
Comparative Assessment of the Antimicrobial Efficacy of Photoactivated Disinfection Employing Distinct Photosensitizers: A Morphological Analysis Using Scanning Electron Microscopy and Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Antibacterial efficacy of herbal extracts as photosensitizers in photodynamic root canal disinfection.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background The complex morphology of the root canal system and bacterial infiltration to greater depths precludes complete debridement by mechanical preparation alone. Despite promising characteristics of photodynamic inactivation (PDI) and different photosensitizers (PSs), there has been limited research on the antibacterial efficacy of chitosan (CS)-based PS combinations for root canal disinfection. We aimed to evaluate and compare the antimicrobial efficacy of photoactivated disinfection (PAD) using two different PSs as an adjunct to final irrigation in root canal treatment. Methodology Forty single-rooted human teeth were divided into four groups: Group A (positive control) = chemo-mechanical debridement (5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl)); Group B = chemo-mechanical debridement (5.25% NaOCl) + 15 μg/ml of methylene blue (MB) with T1 = 30 sec + diode laser (650 nm) and T2 = 30 sec; Group C = chemo-mechanical debridement (5.25% NaOCl) + 15 μg/ml of chlorin e6 (Ce6) with T1 = 30 sec + diode laser (650 nm) and T2 = 30 sec; Group D = chemo-mechanical debridement (5.25% NaOCl) + 15 μg/ml of Ce6 and CS with T1 = 30 sec + diode laser (650 nm) and T2 = 30 sec. Bacterial culture, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM) analysis were used to examine microbial coverage. The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics software, version 25 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY); ANOVA followed by Tukey's post-hoc analysis was used to compare colony counts among the four groups. Results While inter-group comparison of pre-irrigation bacterial counts did not reveal a significant difference, post-irrigation counts were greater for NaOCl, followed by MB, Ce6, and Ce6+CS. However, all groups showed a significant reduction in counts post irrigation (Group A = 20.28 vs. 1.36; Group B = 20.12 vs. 1.11; Group C = 20.16 vs. .62; Group D = 20.20 vs. .33; all values in *10). Conclusion Based on colony counts and SEM and CLSM analysis, we found better anti-microbial properties for Ce6+CS, followed by Ce6, MB, and NaOCl, despite not having a difference in their colony counts before irrigation.
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.