ArticlePloS one2025
The effect of different irrigation activation techniques on smear layer removal, bioceramic sealer penetration, and interfacial adaptation: SEM and CLSM evaluation.
Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Irrigation with Zirconia Microparticles Combined with Different Activation Techniques on Smear Layer Removal: An Ex Vivo Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Influence of Final Irrigation on Calcium Silicate-Based Sealer Dentinal Tubular Penetration: A Systematic Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Effects of SWEEPS Laser-Activated Irrigation and Diode Laser Irradiation on Void Formation and Bond Strength of a New Premixed Calcium Silicate Sealer, BioRoot Flow-An In Vitro Study.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe success of endodontic treatment relies on the cleaning, disinfection, and sealing of the root canal system. This study evaluated the effects of four different irrigation techniques on smear layer removal, dentinal tubule penetration, and interfacial adaptation of a bioceramic root canal sealer.
methodEighty-four sound single-rooted lower premolars were decoronated, prepared to medium size WaveOne Gold reciprocating files, and divided randomly into four groups: group I conventional needle irrigation, group II heat activation, group III Diode laser activation, and group IV XP-endo Finisher file activation. Half of the samples (n = 40) were used to assess smear layer removal, while the other forty-four teeth were used to measure the sealer's penetration and interfacial adaptation after obturation with Bio_C sealer and gutta-percha; the assessments were done using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM).
resultsNo statistically significant differences were found between irrigation activation groups related to smear layer removal assessment (p-value>0.05), while the XP-endo Finisher file activation group showed significantly the highest sealer penetration in the apical third, and the best adaptation in the middle third.
conclusionIrrigation activation can enhance the penetration of the sealer and interfacial adaptation.
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.