ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
To Evaluate the Efficacy of Sonic, Ultrasonic, and Manual Irrigation Using Side-Vented Needles for Removal of Metapex Using Different Irrigating Solutions.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Objective: To evaluate the efficacy of sonic, ultrasonic, and manual irrigation using a side-vented needle for the removal of Metapex with different irrigating solutions. Materials and Methods: Forty-five extracted mandibular premolars were decoronated at 12 mm, and biomechanical preparation was performed up to F2 with thorough irrigation using 5.25% NaOCl between files. Metapex was introduced into the canals, and a precleaning cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) scan was conducted for volumetric analysis of Metapex in the coronal, middle, and apical thirds. Samples were thermocycled for 14 days and then divided into three groups: manual dynamic activation, ultrasonic activation, and sonic activation. After Metapex removal, postcleaning CBCT scans were taken for volumetric analysis. The mean pre- and postcleaning Metapex volumes were calculated for each group and canal third. Statistical analysis was conducted using analysis of variance, with significant results further analyzed by Tukey's Results: The mean residual volumes were 79.85, 97.70, and 96.96 in the manual, ultrasonic, and sonic groups, respectively. Conclusion: Ultrasonic activation is the most efficient method for Metapex removal from root canals.
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.