ReviewCureus2025
Comparative Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Laser-Assisted Irrigation and Ultrasonic Irrigation on Postoperative Pain in Single-Visit Endodontics: 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 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.
- Determining the optimal irrigation activation or agitation techniques for postoperative pain control: A network meta-regression of clinical trials.The Japanese dental science review · 2026Review
- Protocols to evaluate the antibacterial and irrigation efficacy of new root canal irrigants: A systematic review of ex vivo studies.The Japanese dental science review · 2026Review
- Comparative Evaluation of Depth of Irrigant Penetration Using Different Irrigation Systems: An In Vivo Study.Cureus · 2026Article
- Effectiveness and safety of water laser-assisted endodontic-periodontal therapy: A retrospective controlled study.The Journal of international medical 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Effective irrigation plays a critical role in the success of root canal therapy by eliminating residual microbes and debris from inaccessible canal regions. Advanced irrigation techniques have been developed over the years that activate the irrigant leading to increased canal penetration and reduced post-treatment discomfort. These include activation by light, vibration, heat, laser, sonic and ultrasonic methods. The present systematic review compared the effectiveness of laser-activated irrigation (LAI) and ultrasonic irrigation (UI) in reducing postoperative pain following single-visit endodontic treatment. A comprehensive search of electronic databases and grey literature from January 2000 to April 2024 was conducted. Nine randomized controlled trials involving 547 patients met the inclusion criteria. The studies were conducted across four countries and assessed various activation techniques including diode laser, Er:YAG, shock wave-enhanced emission photoacoustic streaming, photon-induced photoacoustic streaming, passive UI, and continuous UI. LAI demonstrated faster pain reduction in the first 24 to 48 hours post-treatment, while UI showed comparable efficacy beyond this period. Both methods were significantly more effective than conventional syringe irrigation. No severe adverse events were reported. The overall risk of bias was found to be low in eight studies, with one study showing some concerns. The results suggest that both LAI and UI are effective in minimizing postoperative pain, with LAI being more effective for early pain control. Integration of either technique is recommended in clinical endodontic protocols to enhance patient comfort and treatment outcomes.
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.