ArticleScientific reports2025
Comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of various intracanal medicaments in eliminating Enterococcus faecalis from simulated internal resorption cavities.
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A preliminary antimicrobial investigation of lactobacillus bulgaricus probiotic supernatants as an intracanal medication against mature E. faecalis biofilm in an ex-vivo dentin blocks model.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Evaluation of activated irrigation techniques for the removal of calcium hydroxide from simulated internal root resorption cavities: an in vitro comparative study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Comparative antimicrobial efficacy of three intracanal medicaments in an in vitro Enterococcus faecalis root canal infection model.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the effectiveness of different supplemental cleaning techniques in the retreatment of roots with small simulated internal resorption cavities: an in vitro comparative study.BMC oral health · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the antibacterial efficacy of calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)
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.