SynthesisEuropean endodontic journal2025
Efficacy of Gel- and Solution-Based Formulations of Conventional Endodontic Disinfectants During Root Canal Shaping: A Systematic Review of Laboratory and Clinical Studies.
Synthesis in European endodontic journal, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review aimed to evaluate the comparative efficacy of gel-based versus solution-based formulations during root canal shaping in terms of smear layer and debris removal, instrument separation, file fatigue, bacterial reduction,debris extrusion, and postoperative pain. Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a comprehensive search of five electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Lilacs, and Google Scholar) and grey literature sources was conducted up to February 2025. The inclusion criteria encompassed randomized controlled trials, in vitro, ex vivo, and clinical studies that compared gel- (e.g., EDTA gel, NaOCl gel, CHX gel) with solution-based (e.g., NaOCl, EDTA, CHX) formulations during root canal shaping. A total of 37 studies were included. Data extraction focused on defined outcomes, and a narrative synthesis was performed due to study heterogeneity. In vitro/ex vivo: Most laboratory studies showed that gel-based formulations improved glide path lubrication and reduced apical extrusion in some models. However, they were consistently associated with increased dentinal debris retention, higher torsional/cyclic fatigue, and a greater risk of file separation due to formation of dense dentine���gel sludge. Solution-based formulations demonstrated superior smear layer removal, better cleaning efficiency, and stronger antimicrobial activity. Clinical trials showed no significant advantage of gel-based formulations in reducing bacterial load or postoperative pain. Sodium hypochlorite solutions provided better antimicrobial outcomes, while pain scores were comparable between gel and solution groups. Overall, clinical findings favoured solution-based formulations. Although gel-based formulations offer some procedural advantages, their overall clinical performance is inferior to solution-based formulations, particularly concerning cleaning efficacy, instrument safety, and antimicrobial action. Their routine use during root canal shaping should be approached with caution and ideally followed by thorough irrigation. Further well-designed clinical trials are required to establish standardized protocols and clarify the potential role of gel-based formulations in endodontic irrigation. (EEJ-2024-11-169).
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.