ArticlePloS one2024
Smear layer removal comparing conventional irrigation, passive ultrasonic irrigation, EndoActivator System, and a new sonic device (Perfect Clean System) by scanning electron microscopy: An ex vivo study.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of smear layer removal using polymer and metal tips of ultrasonic irrigation device: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Effect of ultrasonic versus laser-activated irrigation on smear layer removal - AnBioinformation · 2026Article
- Multisonic Ultracleaning and Laser-Activated Irrigation Effect Compared to Passive Ultrasonic Activation for Debridement in Minimally Invasive Instrumentation of Necrotic Oval Root Canals: An Ex Vivo Histological Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis study evaluated the smear layer removal provided by conventional, sonic, and ultrasonic irrigation techniques. METHODOLOGY: Forty extracted human mandibular first premolars were selected and instrumented using the ProTaper Next System files and 2.5% sodium hypochlorite. Afterward, they were divided into 4 groups (n. 10) according to the irrigation technique used to perform the final irrigation with a chelating solution (17% EDTA): conventional irrigation (CI), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), EndoActivator System (EAS), and Perfect Clean System (PCS). The smear layer removal was determined through a score after evaluating scanning electron microscope images (1.000x) obtained at 1, 5, 8, and 12mm from the working length (WL). Statistical analyses were carried out by the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn's tests with a significance level of 5% (P < 0.05).
resultsAll irrigation techniques were unable to promote an effective smear layer removal at 1mm from the WL in comparison with the other locations (P < .05). At 5, 8, and 12mm from the WL, no statistically significant differences were observed among CI, PUI, EAS, and PCS (P > 0.05). At 12mm from the WL, statistically significant differences were only identified after comparing PCS and CI (P < .05).
conclusionThe smear layer removal was only efficient at 5, 8, and 12 from the WL with no significant statistical differences among CI, PUI, EAS, and PCS (P > 0.05).
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.