ArticleLasers in medical science2025
Comparative analysis of laser and ultrasonic irrigation techniques for smear layer removal in endodontics.
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. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Dentinal tubule penetration of sodium hypochlorite and super-oxidized water using diode laser and passive ultrasonic activation: an in vitro confocal laser scanning microscopy study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Erbium, Chromium-Doped Yttrium-Scandium-Gallium-Garnet Laser in Endodontics: A Narrative Review.Cureus · 2026Review
- Laser-activated irrigation versus ultrasonic or syringe irrigation for smear layer and debris removal: AnBioinformation · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis in vitro study compared the efficacy of Er, Cr: YSGG laser (2780 nm), diode laser (976 nm), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), and conventional syringe-needle (CSN) irrigation in smear layer removal, evaluating irrigant chemistry and root canal level.
methods160 single-rooted premolars were instrumented and divided into four irrigation groups (n = 40/group): Er, Cr: YSGG (25 mJ, 50 Hz, radial-firing tip), diode laser (Pulsed 50%, 1.5 W), PUI, and CSN (side-vented needle). Groups were subdivided by irrigant (NaOCl + EDTA, EDTA, NaOCl, saline; n = 10/subgroup). Activation involved four 15-second cycles. Smear layer was scored (1-5) via SEM by blinded evaluators. Data were analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests (p ≤ 0.05).
resultsEr, Cr: YSGG achieved the lowest scores (best cleaning) across all thirds, outperforming diode laser, PUI, and CSN. NaOCl + EDTA was the most effective irrigant (p < 0.05). Remarkably, saline with Er, Cr: YSGG surpassed NaOCl alone. Apical thirds showed consistently poorer removal.
conclusionEr, Cr: YSGG laser activation with NaOCl + EDTA is the most effective protocol for smear layer removal. The powerful mechanical effects of Er, Cr: YSGG dominated when using saline. Diode laser activation also surpassed PUI.
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.