ArticleJournal of dental sciences2025
Comparisons of the smear layer removal efficacy of dual-action irrigants and different activation techniques.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of temporal delay in SWEEPS dual-pulse Er: YAG laser-activated irrigation on fluid dynamics in confined domain environment: an in vitro study.Lasers in medical science · 2026Article
- Article
- Evaluation of smear layer removal using polymer and metal tips of ultrasonic irrigation device: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Laser-activated irrigation versus ultrasonic or syringe irrigation for smear layer and debris removal: AnBioinformation · 2026Article
- Cleaning efficacy and apical pressure in sonically-activated irrigation systems: Impact of tip vertical stroke.Journal of dental sciences · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: Dual-action root canal irrigants containing disinfectant(s) and chelator(s) are expected to enhance root canal cleaning efficiency. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of these irrigants and different activation techniques on smear layer removal. Materials and methods: Seventy-six extracted human mandibular premolars were root canal-prepared up to an apical size of #40/0.06, grouped and irrigated as follows, and the smear layer on each third of the canal wall was evaluated using scanning electron microscopy. In Experiment 1, syringe irrigation (SI) was carried out using a dual-action irrigant (Triton or SmearOFF) or a combination of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and 6% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) (n = 12, each). In Experiment 2, Triton was activated by laser-activated irrigation (LAI) with a novel Er:YAG laser equipment (Adverl SH, Morita Manufacturing, Kyoto, Japan), an LAI protocol called shockwave-enhanced emission photoacoustic streaming (SWEEPS), or ultrasonic-activated irrigation (UAI), and irrigated with SI (n = 10, each). Results: In Experiment 1, the Triton group demonstrated significantly better smear layer scores than the EDTA and NaOCl combination group across all canal thirds ( Conclusion: Triton was more effective than the combination of EDTA and NaOCl in removing the smear layer across all root canal thirds. The efficacy of Triton was further enhanced by activation with LAI and SWEEPS.
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.