ArticleLasers in medical science2025
Evaluation of antibacterial efficacy of laser-assisted and passive ultrasonic irrigation methods in disinfection of post space and effects on bond strength of glass fiber posts to radicular dentin.
Article in Lasers in medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the antibacterial efficacy of various irrigation activation methods and their effects on the push-out bond strength (PBS) of glass fiber posts (GFP) to radicular dentin in teeth with post spaces infected with E. faecalis. Sixty human mandibular premolar teeth were decoronized. All root canals were shaped using a similar protocol and sterilized in an autoclave. Sterilization was confirmed in 10 randomly selected samples. 50 root canals were obturated. Post spaces were prepared in all samples, and root canals were contaminated with E. faecalis and incubated for 4 weeks. Bacterial growth was confirmed in 10 randomly selected samples. Samples were randomly divided into four groups according to irrigation activation methods (n = 10): Standard needle irrigation (SNI), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), photon-induced photoacoustic streaming (PIPS), and shock wave-enhanced emission photoacoustic streaming (SWEEPS). CFU levels were recorded before and after disinfection by taking samples from the root canals with paper points. GFPs were cemented with self-adhesive resin cement. 2 mm thick sections were taken from the apical, middle, and coronal parts of GFPs, and a push-out test was performed with a universal testing machine. Failure modes were examined under a stereomicroscope (40×). Data were analyzed statistically. None of the irrigation methods tested achieved complete bacterial elimination. However, PIPS and SWEEPS achieved significantly greater bacterial reduction than SNI (ΔCFU [S1-S2], mean: PIPS 0.097; SWEEPS 0.090; SNI 0.045; P < .05). No significant differences were observed in PBS among groups (P > .05); values were generally higher coronally than apically (e.g., SNI 79.1 ± 50.1 vs. 34.1 ± 26.7 MPa), regardless of irrigation method. Adhesive fractures were dominant in all sections in SWEEPS, cohesive fractures were dominant in SNI, and mixed fractures were dominant in PUI. PIPS and SWEEPS are more effective than SNI in reducing bacterial load in the post space; however, this superiority is not reflected in bond strength. Irrigation activation method may affect the dentin surface and fracture type but does not make a decisive difference on PBS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41081972What 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.