ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2026
Antibacterial efficacy of different irrigants and activation techniques in primary endodontic infections: A randomized controlled trial.
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 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.
- Influence of kinematic motion and instrumentation strategy on apical debris extrusion during root canal preparation: AnJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims and Objectives: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the antibacterial efficacy of two root canal irrigants - 2.5% sodium hypochlorite and 2% Chlorhexidine with and without activation for the treatment of primary endodontic infections. Materials and Methods: The study involved 90 patients with single-rooted, nonvital teeth with normal periapical appearance. Pretreatment samples (S1) were taken following access opening and determination of working length. One of six experimental groups - each representing a distinct irrigant activation technique - was randomly assigned to the participants: Group I received 2.5% NaOCl with conventional syringe and needle; Group II received 2.5% NaOCl with sonic activation; and Group III was treated with 2.5% NaOCl using ultrasonic activation (UA), Group IV used 2% CHX with conventional syringe and needle; Group V involved 2% CHX with sonic activation; and Group VI utilized 2% CHX with UA. Following chemomechanical preparation, posttreatment samples (S2) were obtained. Bacterial colonies were then quantified after 24 h using conventional colony-counting methods. Results: In the intragroup comparisons, microbial counts decreased significantly from all six groups, S1 to S2. The maximum reduction was seen in Group III, followed by Group VI, Group V, Group II, and Group I; Group IV showed the least reduction. Group III showed statistically significant differences compared to the other experimental groups, and Group VI also showed significant differences compared to Groups I and IV. Conclusion: It was observed that UA was most successful in decreasing microorganisms, while NaOCl outperformed CHX in terms of antibacterial efficacy. Therefore, NaOCl with UA could be considered a highly effective disinfection protocol in endodontics.
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.