SynthesisBMC oral health2026
Effectiveness of the GentleWave system in root canal disinfection: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Histological evaluation of energy-intensive irrigation systems for debridement of uninstrumented oval root canals with different access cavity designs.Lasers in medical science · 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
backgroundEffective root canal disinfection is crucial for successful treatment outcomes, especially in the context of conservative root canal preparation. Thus, this systematic review aimed to compare the disinfection efficacy of the GentleWave (GW) system with other conventional and advanced irrigation activation techniques.
methodsA comprehensive electronic search was conducted across PubMed (MEDLINE), Web of Science (all databases), Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Cochrane Library databases. In vitro studies that compare the GW system with other conventional and advanced irrigation techniques in terms of microbiological outcomes (e.g., biofilm, bacterial, lipopolysaccharide (LPS), or lipoteichoic acid (LTA) reduction) and/or smear and debris removal were included based on the eligibility criteria. Due to substantial heterogeneity in study designs, interventions, and outcomes, a narrative synthesis was performed. The risk of bias assessment was done using the QUIN Tool.
resultsA total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria. GW was associated with significantly higher reductions in LPS and LTA compared to passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI). While the majority of studies indicated enhanced biofilm and debris/smear layer removal with GW, some studies demonstrated similar or superior disinfection efficacy for PUI, particularly when the latter was used in conjunction with adequate canal preparation and optimized protocols. Er: YAG lasers resulted in comparable debris removal with GW.
conclusionAlthough GW shows effective disinfection in the context of conservative canal preparations, its superiority over conventional irrigation systems remains inconsistent across studies due to the heterogeneity in study designs. Methodological limitations and cost considerations further limit definitive clinical interpretation. Further well-designed, standardized in vitro protocols and clinical trials are needed to confirm whether GW yields clinically meaningful advantages and is cost-effective compared with established methods.
trial registrationThe study protocol was registered in the Open Science Framework (DOI No.: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/AZN3T ).
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.