ArticleOdontology2025
Influence of irrigation needle design on cleaning efficiency in 3D mandibular molar models.
Article in Odontology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of irrigation systems for removing intracanal medication isthmuses in 3D-printed molars replicas.Odontology · 2026Article
- Impact of Taper Design on Cleaning Efficacy, Stress Generation, and Irrigant Performance: A Combined Experimental, Finite Element Analysis, and Computational Fluid Dynamics Assessment.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Minimally Invasive Root Canal Cleaning: Evaluating Supplementary Irrigation Techniques.Dentistry journal · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of various endodontic irrigation needles in removing residual tissue from root canals, focusing on the apical, middle, and coronal thirds. Forty 3D resin replicas of mandibular molars (n = 10/group) were divided into four distinct needle types: an open-ended needle, a closed-ended and lateral-vented needle, a closed-ended and double lateral-vented needle, and a polyethylene irriFlex needle with a double lateral outlets. A 30G NaviTip needle uniformly filled the canal system, delivering the artificial biofilm mixture formulated with a hydrogel. Then, the pre- and post-irrigation images were assessed quantitatively to measure tissue removal and qualitatively to determine the presence or absence of tissue remnants. The open-ended needle significantly (p < 0.05) removed tissue across the entire canal length. Open-ended and polyethylene irriFlex needles were more effective in the apical region than closed-ended needles (p < 0.05). Specifically, in the apical third, the percentages of remaining tissue were 23.7% for the open-ended and 26.8% for the irriFlex needle, compared to 53.9% and 44.9% for the closed-ended needles. The open-ended needle showed superior efficacy in the middle and coronal regions (p < 0.01). Qualitatively, only one sample was completely free of tissue in the entire root canal and one in the apical third. The open-ended needle demonstrated superior cleaning efficacy in the root canal, particularly in the middle and coronal regions, while the irriFlex needle performed better in the apical region than closed-ended needles. These results showed the importance of needle type in effective root canal irrigation. This study indicates that needle type significantly affects tissue removal in endodontic irrigation; open-ended and polyethylene needles are most effective in apical canals.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39928270What 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.