ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Effect of ultrasonic power settings on intracanal biofilm reduction.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study evaluated the effect of different power settings in ultrasonic activation, combined with antimicrobial and non-antimicrobial irrigants, on Enterococcus faecalis biofilm reduction and cell viability. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 150 root canals of human uniradicular teeth were prepared to size #50.05 and inoculated with E. faecalis for 21 days. Specimens were assigned to groups according to ultrasonic activation protocols (activation at lower or intermediate power and no activation) and irrigant (2.5% NaOCl or phosphate-buffered saline) used in ultrasonically activated irrigation. Biofilm reduction was assessed by colony-forming unit (CFU) counts and data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey’s post hoc test (p < 0.05). Biofilm structure and bacterial cell viability were qualitatively evaluated by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM).
resultsSignificant differences in CFU counts were observed between irrigants, ultrasonic power settings, and their interaction (p < 0.001). NaOCl 2.5% promoted greater microbial reduction regardless of the activation protocol (p < 0.05). Intermediate power resulted in the lowest CFU counts (p < 0.05), and showed greater qualitative biofilm disruption and reduced cell viability with both irrigants, particularly in the middle and apical thirds.
conclusionsIntermediate ultrasonic power improves root canal cleaning by enhancing biofilm disruption and reducing bacterial cell viability, even without antimicrobial irrigants. Precise adjustment of ultrasonic power should be regarded as a critical parameter to maximize cleaning and disinfection efficacy. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Adjusting ultrasonic power to an intermediate level improves biofilm removal and reduces bacterial viability, enhancing root canal cleaning even when non-antimicrobial irrigants are used.
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.