ArticleEuropean endodontic journal2025
Cleaning Effectiveness of QMix and EDTA When Activated with Different Techniques: An In Vitro Study.
Article in European endodontic journal, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis comprehensive study was aimed to compare the effectiveness of QMix and EDTA, activated by different techniques, in removing apical debris and the smear layer.
methodsThe crowns of 180 single-rooted mandibular premolar teeth were removed, and the root canals were shaped up to #X4 using the ProTaper-Next rotary file system. Samples were randomly divided into six main groups according to the activation protocols (n=30). These groups were as follows: Manuel activation with 30G NaviTip needle (MNA), manual dynamic activation with gutta-percha cone (MDA), passive ultrasonic activation (PUA), EndoActivator (EA), XP-Endo Finisher (XP) and Photon Induced Photoacoustic Streaming (PIPS). Each leading group was then divided into three subgroups for the final irrigation solution (distilled water, 17% EDTA and QMix) (n=10). While debris was examined in the randomly selected five roots in each subgroup, the smear layer was examined in the others. A stereomicroscope with x25 magnification was utilised to examine the debris, and the specimens were evaluated using a 4-grade system. To assess the smear layer, scanning electron microscope images were taken at x1000 magnification at the apical third of the root canals and scored using a 5-grade scoring system. The statistical analysis of the data was performed by using the Kruskal-Wallis test (p<0.05).
resultsWhile XP and PIPS activation techniques were more effective than the other techniques at apical in terms of debris removal when using QMix (p<0.05), there was no statistically significant difference among the activation techniques when utilising EDTA (p>0.05). Regarding the removal of the apical smear layer, EDTA showed similar efficacy with all the tested activation techniques (p>0.05). Additionally, QMix was shown to be more effective when used in combination with MNA and PUA activation methods compared to MDA, EA, XP and PIPS techniques (p<0.05).
conclusionEDTA was found to be more effective than QMix in removing apical debris; however, OMix demonstrated its highest effectiveness when utilized with activation systems such as PIPS and XP. In addition, EDTA was found to be more effective than QMix in eliminating the apical smear layer. (EEJ-2024-08-139).
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.