ArticleScientific reports2025
The effect of pomegranate peel extract and apple cider vinegar as an irrigants in disinfecting the necrotic primary root canal.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. 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.
- Phytotherapy in Pediatric Dentistry: A Narrative Review of Clinical Applications and Evidence.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
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
Abstract
This in-vivo study aims to assess pomegranate peel extract (PPE) and Apple Cider Vinegar (ACV) efficacy in disinfecting the necrotic primary teeth root canals. Forty-five primary incisors in thirty children. The treatment was performed under local anesthesia with rubber dam isolation. Sterile paper points were inserted for 60 s to collect the first bacterial swab (S1). Root canal walls were prepared and irrigated with 22 mL within 5 min according to the following groups (randomly with 1:1:1 allocation ratio): Group A: (n = 15) with 5% PPE, Group B: (n = 15) with 5% ACV, and Group C: (n = 15) with 5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl). Canals were dried with paper points, and paper point was placed in each canal for 60 s to collect the second bacterial swab (S2). Bacterial colonies were counted after 48-hour incubation at 37 °C and the bacterial counts in the S1 and S2 for each sample were compared using the decimal logarithm. Intra-group comparisons were made using Paired sample t and Wilcoxon signed ranks tests. Between-groups comparisons were made using One-Way ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U, and Independent Samples tests. The significance level was set at α = 0.05. PPE demonstrated a 60.43% reduction in CFU count, ACV demonstrated a 51.56% reduction in CFU count, while NaOCl showed an 87.49% reduction in CFU count. Although NaOCl has shown effectiveness in reducing bacterial counts, PPE and ACV have also displayed some antibacterial activity. However, their overall efficacy is less established, which raises questions about their viability as a natural alternative to a 5% NaOCl.
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.