ReviewCureus2025
A Comparison Between Multisonic and Ultrasonic Irrigant Activation Techniques for Multispecies Biofilm Removal During Root Canal Disinfection: A Systematic Review.
Review in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of the GentleWave system in root canal disinfection: a systematic review.BMC oral health · 2026Pooled it
- 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
- An Assessment of the Antibacterial Efficacy of the GentleWave System in Comparison to Other Endodontic Irrigation Systems: A Systematic Review.Clinical and experimental dental research · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review aims to compare multisonic and ultrasonic irrigant activation techniques in polymicrobial biofilm removal. We conducted a literature search involving SCOPUS, PubMed, Cochrane, EBSCO host, and LILACS databases from inception to December 2024, in addition to a manual search using Google Scholar. The risk of bias assessment was done using the guidelines described for in vitro studies and the criteria for evaluation was based on JBI criteria and CRIS guidelines for quality assessment of in vitro studies. Three articles were included in the final analysis. The included studies evaluated biofilm removal in extracted teeth models incubated with biofilm; while two studies used quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) methodology, one used colony forming unit (CFU). Except in the study by Llerena et al., the GentleWave® multisonic System (GWS) outperformed ultrasonic irrigant activation (UI) in terms of biofilm removal. Despite the limitations of this systematic review, multisonic irrigant activation demonstrated similar efficacy in reducing intraradicular biofilm when compared to ultrasonic irrigant activation.
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.