ArticleLasers in medical science2025
In vitro evaluation of dye penetration and dentin microhardness after laser irradiation using photon-induced photoacoustic streaming and shock wave enhanced emission photoacoustic streaming tips compared to ultrasonic activation.
Article in Lasers in medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
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
The purpose of this study was to compare the penetration of methylene blue (MB) dye after laser irradiation using PIPS (photon-induced photoacoustic streaming) and SWEEPS (shockwave enhanced emission photoacoustic streaming) methods compared to Passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) and to study their effect on dentin microhardness. A total of 44 single-rooted human teeth which were extracted for orthodontic or periodontal reasons were used. The teeth were decapitated to standardize roots to 12 mm in length. Canals were prepared up to size #30.6% and divided randomly into four groups (n = 11/group) according to the method of NaOCl activation: Group I: Er: YAG laser activation with PIPS tip; Group II: Er: YAG laser activation with SWEEPS tip; Group III: passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) and Group IV: conventional needle irrigation (CI). MB dye was injected then teeth were sectioned horizontally into coronal, middle and apical sections. Penetration depth/area percentages were measured using stereomicroscopy. Coronal specimens were further subjected to Vickers microhardness testing. Data were statistically analyzed. SWEEPS and PIPS activation methods provided higher dye penetration depth and area percentages compared to PUI with no statistically significant differences between all test groups. However, all test groups showed statistically significant differences with the CI (control) group. SWEEPS activation provided higher microhardness values with statistically significant differences with the other groups. Laser irrigant activation using PIPS and SWEEPS is comparable to PUI concerning MB dye penetration. However, SWEEPS preserved dentin microhardness significantly which can be beneficial for the long-term prognosis of root canal treated teeth.
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.