ArticleOdontology2026
Chemical and antimicrobial profiling of glycolic and etidronic acid as endodontic irrigants.
Article in Odontology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to analyze the chemical interactions between commonly used endodontic irrigants and evaluate the antimicrobial efficacy of etidronic acid (HEDP), glycolic acid (GA), and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) as final irrigants. The solutions tested included 9% HEDP, 17% GA, 17% EDTA, 2.5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), 2% chlorhexidine (CHX) gel, and distilled water (DW). Solutions were mixed in a 1:1 ratio and analyzed using electrospray ionization quadrupole time-of-flight mass spectrometry (ESI-QToF). The pH values were measured with a calibrated pHmeter. For the microbiological assay, ninety mandibular premolars were inoculated with Enterococcus faecalis and incubated for 5 days. Teeth were randomly assigned to five groups (n = 18), according to the final irrigation protocol: 17% EDTA, 17% GA, 9% HEDP in NaOCl, 9% HEDP in saline (SS), and SS alone. Microbial sampling was performed before and after chemomechanical preparation and final irrigation. Colony-forming units per milliliter (CFU/mL) were quantified, log-transformed, and statistically analyzed using Friedman and Dunn's post hoc tests. Chemical analysis revealed precipitate formation in the mixtures of NaOCl with CHX gel, NaOCl with EDTA, CHX gel with HEDP, and CHX with EDTA. No p-chloroaniline (PCA) or other toxic byproducts were detected. GA, HEDP and EDTA irrigants reduced bacterial load. These results highlight the potential of the solution as an effective final irrigant and underscore the importance of understanding chemical interactions among irrigants to prevent adverse effects during endodontic therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40965745What 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.