ReviewJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2026
Is continuous soft chelation protocol more efficacious than conventional irrigation protocol in removing the smear layer? - A systematic review.
Review 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. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The purpose of this systematic review is to compare the effectiveness of continuous soft chelation and conventional irrigation in removing the smear layer during endodontic treatment. Methods: Two reviewers independently carried out an extensive literature search. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines; PubMed/ MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane were searched from 2000 to 2024. In vitro studies comparing continuous and conventional chelation in smear layer removal were included. Nine studies met the criteria. Results: Out of 7097 articles, nine were included. Continuous chelation showed better smear layer removal in four studies, while one study favored conventional irrigation. Four studies reported similar outcomes. Etidronic acid, a soft chelating agent, was commonly used, either alone or in combination with sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl). Variations existed in protocols and outcomes. There was low-certainty evidence that continuous soft chelation protocol is better in removing the smear layer than conventional irrigation protocol. This suggests that combining a weak chelator with NaOCl solution may produce a single irrigation solution mixture that has the ability to dissolve soft tissue, has antibacterial properties, and has the ability to chelate. Conclusion: Hence, continuous chelation shows promise as an alternative to conventional irrigation in smear layer removal, but more research is needed to validate findings and address methodological heterogeneity.
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.