ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025
Evaluation of Antimicrobial Efficacy of Different Root Canal Irrigants in Endodontic Treatment Cases: A Comparative Study.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Root canal disinfection plays a critical role in the success of endodontic treatment. This study evaluates the antimicrobial efficacy of three commonly used root canal irrigants: "sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl)", "chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX)", and "ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA)", in reducing microbial loads during endodontic treatment. Methods: Ninety patients with primary endodontic infections were randomized into three groups. Each group received irrigation with one of the three solutions. Preirrigation and postirrigation microbial samples were collected and cultured to determine "colony-forming unit (CFU)" counts. Statistical analysis was performed using paired Results: NaOCl showed the highest antimicrobial efficacy, achieving a 90% bacterial reduction, followed by chlorhexidine (85%) and EDTA (70%). ANOVA revealed significant differences between the groups ( Conclusions: NaOCl remains the most effective root canal irrigant, followed by chlorhexidine and EDTA. Clinicians should select irrigants based on their antimicrobial properties and clinical context to optimize treatment outcomes.
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.