ArticleScientific reports2025
An in-vitro assessment of the irrigants and irrigation protocols effect on the ProRoot MTA marginal leakage in the furcal perforations.
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 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.
- Orthograde Apical Barrier in Non-Vital Immature Permanent Teeth: A Narrative Review of Clinical Pathways, Procedural Determinants, and Evidence Gaps.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Effects of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine on microhardness and solubility of mineral trioxide aggregate and bioceramic putty.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To assess the effects of 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), and 2% chlorhexidine (CHX), individually and in combination, as part of an irrigation protocol on furcal perforations treated with ProRoot MTA, using the dye extraction (DE) method for evaluation. Sixty intact mandibular molars were used. Perforations were created with a 1.2 mm diameter at the FA of the molars and sealed the perforations with MTA. Then the samples were divided randomly after to six groups according to the irrigant used: Group 1 (n = 10), 5.25% NaOCl; Group 2 (n = 10), 17% EDTA; Group 3 (n = 10), 2% CHX, Group 4 (n = 10), saline serum (control group); Group 5 (n = 10), (5.25% NaOCl,17% EDTA, 5.25% NaOCl) protocol replaced with saline serum between each irrigant; and Group 6 (n = 10), (5.25% NaOCl, 17% EDTA, 2% CHX). Specimens were immersed for 24 h in 2% methylene blue. Subsequently, a DE test was performed. Data analysis employed the One-Way ANOVA and LSD tests. The significance level was set at 0.05. DE values between groups revealed significant differences in this study (p < 0.01). Control group DE values were less than NaOCl (p < 0.05), EDTA (p < 0.01), CHX (p < 0.01), protocol (NaOCl - EDTA - NaOCl) (p < 0.01), and protocol (NaOCl - EDTA - CHX) (p < 0.01) groups, proposing the order: Control group < NaOCl < EDTA < CHX≤(NaOCl - EDTA - NaOCl) protocol≤(NaOCl - EDTA - CHX) protocol. Deterioration of the MTA sealing ability was noted when contacted with 5.25% NaOCl, 17% EDTA, 2% CHX, and both protocols.
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.