ArticleScientific reports2026
Evaluation of bacterial reduction by contemporary irrigation activation methods against Enterococcus faecalis biofilm in root canals.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
The aim of this study was to evaluate the bacterial reduction achieved under in vitro conditions by different irrigation activation methods applied with sterile physiological saline solution in an Enterococcus faecalis root canal biofilm model. Seventy single-rooted and single-canal mandibular premolar teeth were divided into seven groups (n = 10): positive and negative control groups and five experimental groups (Standard needle irrigation-SNI, EDDY, passive ultrasonic irrigation-PUI, XP-Endo Finisher, Erbium: Yttrium-Aluminum-Garnet-Er: YAG laser). On the 21st day of biofilm formation, initial samples (S1) were obtained; they were cultured on blood agar, quantified as CFU/mL, and analyzed using scanning electron microscopy. Following irrigation activation, second samples (S2) were obtained and evaluated using the same procedure. The data were analyzed using SPSS 23 software. Since the assumptions of parametric tests were not met, the Kruskal-Wallis and Bonferroni-adjusted Mann-Whitney U tests were used for intergroup comparisons, and the Wilcoxon test was used for pre- and post-procedural comparisons (p < 0.05). No significant difference was found among the groups in terms of S1 values (p = 0.272). In all experimental groups, a significant reduction in bacterial counts was detected as a result of the comparison of S1 and S2 values (p < 0.005). A significant difference was determined among the groups with respect to S2 values (p < 0.001). The EDDY group exhibited the lowest mean value and was found to be significantly different from all other groups (p < 0.001). No significant difference was observed among the PUI, XP-Endo Finisher, and Er: YAG laser groups (p > 0.001); however, each of these groups demonstrated significantly lower bacterial counts compared to the SNI group (p < 0.001). In conclusion, all evaluated methods provided a significant reduction in bacterial counts; however, EDDY was determined to be the most effective method. Further studies are required to evaluate its clinical effectiveness.
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.