ArticleBMC oral health2025
Assessment of smear layer removal utilizing a conservative root canal instrumentation technique involving magnetically agitated irrigation with iron paramagnetic nanoparticles.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Iron Oxide-Based Magnetic Nanoparticles in Oral Infection Control.International journal of nanomedicine · 2026Review
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
backgroundThe development of new instrument designs for mechanically shaping root canal walls does not completely clean all the root space, because of the disparity between the complexities of canal anatomy and instrument design. This study aimed to determine the optimum effect of iron oxide nanomagnet particles (IONPs) in cleaning the surface of the root canal and open dentin tubules, as well as analyze the dispersion of iron ions on the dentinal walls. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty intact extraction teeth were used and divided into six groups as stated by agitation protocol of irrigant: Group 1: Control, Group 2: Normal saline with ultrasound, Group 3: IONP with ultrasound. Group 4: IONP with magnetic field using an endodontic needle. Group 5: IONP with magnetic field using ultrasound, and Group 6: 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). Field emission scan electron microscopy (FE-SEM) and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) were utilized to determine cleaning root canal surfaces, opening dentinal tubules, removing the smear layer, and the percentage dispersion of ions on the root canal wall. The nonparametric tests of the Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney, and parametric test of One-Way ANOVA and Tuckey posthoc tests were used to compare irrigation protocols.
resultsCompared to the other groups, the agitation of irrigant IONP using a combination of a magnetic field and an ultrasound device proved to be the most effective. Additionally, the agitation of irrigant IONP using only an ultrasound device was more effective than using only normal saline with an ultrasound device. Iron ions have low percentages, perfect dispersions, and minimal precipitation in the apical section of the root canal wall.
conclusionCompared to the control group, the utilization of IONP irrigant agitation with a magnetic field did not affect dentinal structure while enhancing the cleaning of the canal surface, opening dentin tubules, and achieving a uniform distribution of iron ions with minimal precipitation. These findings may hold promise as a tool for endodontic treatment while preserving tooth structure.
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.