ArticlePeerJ2025
The influence of cavity configuration and irrigation activation on root canal smear removal-an
Article in PeerJ, 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.
- Evaluation of the Effect of Coronal Flaring on SWEEPS Laser-Activated Irrigation in Root Canals with Different Curvatures: A Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Comparative efficacy of irrigation activation systems in root canal cleanliness: a region-specific analysis of debris and smear layer removal.Lasers in medical science · 2026Article
- Effect of preendodontic build-up on irrigant penetration in extracted single-rooted premolars: AnJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Effect of ultrasonic versus laser-activated irrigation on smear layer removal - AnBioinformation · 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
Background: Effective root canal therapy (RCT) depends on proper disinfection rather than complete sterilization of the root canal system. The smear layer created during instrumentation can inhibit disinfection, and its removal is crucial for successful treatment. Recently, various irrigant activation methods, including shock wave enhanced emission photoacoustic streaming (SWEEPS), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), sonic activation (SA), and syringe irrigation (SI), have been developed to enhance cleaning efficacy. Sterilization of the root canal system is crucial for successful root canal therapy. Lasers have emerged as a popular choice for eliminating microorganisms from the root canal. Aim: This Materials and Methods: Eighty extracted human maxillary incisors were prepared using a VDW 35/0.04 rotary system and randomly divided into eight groups ( Results: No statistically significant difference was found in smear layer scores in the coronal and middle thirds among the groups. However, significant differences were observed in the apical third ( Conclusions: While access cavity design alone did not significantly affect smear layer removal, SWEEPS was the most effective activation method. The combination of SWEEPS with conventional cavity design yielded the most effective smear layer removal in the apical third. These results emphasize the importance of selecting not only an effective irrigant but also an appropriate cavity design to optimize apical disinfection in clinical endodontics.
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.