ArticleBrazilian oral research2025
Effectiveness of supplementary protocols for filling material removal after sealer ultrasonic activation - a laboratory investigation.
Article in Brazilian oral research, 2025. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Ultrasonic activation of the endodontic sealer makes it difficult to remove the material during endodontic reintervention. Therefore, supplementary removal protocols should be tested to optimize the removal of the remaining filling material. This study assessed the effectiveness of supplementary protocols for filling material removal after sealer ultrasonic activation (UA). Sixty teeth were prepared and distributed into two groups: UA and No UA of the sealer before obturation. Teeth were re-instrumented and two supplementary removal protocols were tested, resulting in six groups (n = 10): NoUA; NoUA+XP (XP-endo Finisher); NoUA+CS (Clearsonic-R1); UA; UA+XP; and UA+CS. Root canals were analyzed under stereomicroscopy and scanning electron microscopy for quantification of the remaining filling material. Considering the total root canal area, the NoUA+CS group had the lowest remaining filling material compared to NoUA+XP, UA+XP and UA+CS groups (p < 0.05). When the root thirds were compared, there was no statistical difference among groups (p > 0.05). The XP-endo Finisher instrument demonstrated the lowest effectiveness when used as a supplementary step. In contrast, the Clearsonic-R1 insert exhibited the highest performance.
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.