Trial reportBMC oral health2025
Efficacy of glycolic acid at different concentrations for smear layer removal with various activation systems.
Trial report 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 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effects of Sodium Hypochlorite Concentration and Final Irrigation Protocol on Residual Filling Material in Retreated Oval Root Canals Obturated with a Calcium Silicate-Based Sealer: A Scanning Electron Microscopy Study.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Article
- Influence of Final Irrigation on Calcium Silicate-Based Sealer Dentinal Tubular Penetration: A Systematic Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the effects of different irrigation solutions and activation systems on smear layer removal.
methodsNinety mandibular canines were instrumented using T-Endo Must files (#40.04) and randomly assigned to nine groups (n = 10) according to the final irrigation protocol: Group 1a (17% EDTA, Needle), Group 1b (5% GA, Needle), Group 1c (10% GA, Needle), Group 2a (17% EDTA, EDDY), Group 2b (5% GA, EDDY), Group 2c (10% GA, EDDY), Group 3a (17% EDTA, XP-F), Group 3b (5% GA, XP-F), and Group 3c (10% GA, XP-F). Smear layer removal was evaluated using scanning electron microscopy. A three-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni correction was performed to assess the effects of the independent variables and their interactions, and Tukey's post hoc test was used for pairwise comparisons. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsRoot section, irrigation solution, and activation system each significantly affected smear scores (p < 0.0001). A significant two-way interaction was observed between root section and irrigation solution (p = 0.025). Smear scores increased from the coronal to the apical third of the root canal. Both 5% and 10% GA significantly reduced smear scores compared with 17% EDTA (p < 0.05), and activation using EDDY and XP-F resulted in significantly lower smear scores compared with needle irrigation (p < 0.05).
conclusionBoth 5% and 10% GA resulted in lower smear scores, while irrigation activation with EDDY and XP-F significantly enhanced smear layer removal.
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.