ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2026
Comparative Evaluation of Smear Layer Removal by Various Endodontic Irrigating Solutions-An
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Present study aimed to investigate the smear layer removal of three different endodontic irrigating solutions: Group I-17% EDTA followed by 3% NaOCl, Group II-combination of hydrogen peroxide (12.8 mL/100 mL), sodium benzoate (0.021 mL/100 mL), acetic acid (2.664 mL/100 mL), and water; Group III-combination of 4.25% citric acid, 3% doxycycline, 9% propylene glycol, and water. Materials and Methods: One hundred twenty-three extracted premolars were stored and decoronated. The root canals were biomechanically prepared with ProTaper rotary instruments (Dentsply) up to size F5. During instrumentation, 1 mL of 2.5% NaOCl was used as an intracanal irrigant. After instrumentation, one hundred and twenty samples were randomly divided into three experimental groups according to different irrigating solutions used. As control, three specimens were prepared in same manner as experimental groups but only irrigated with 2.5% NaOCl and distilled water not with acids or chelators. Finally, each root canal of all the experimental samples were irrigated with 2.5% NaOCl and distilled water, dried, temporarily sealed and stored and subjected to scan under SEM. Results: Smear layer removal efficacy of all the experimental groups were compared at all sites (coronal, middle, apical) with one another and Conclusion: Combination of 4.25% citric acid, 3% doxycycline, 9% propylene glycol, and water showed effective smear layer removal from the coronal, middle, and apical thirds as compared to other irrigating solutions than other irrigating solutions.
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.