ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Comparative evaluation of cetylpyridinium chloride-modified EDTA, sequential, and continuous chelation on smear layer removal and dentin erosion.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Objectives: Evaluate the effectiveness of cetylpyridinium chloride (cpc) addition to EDTA (CPC-modified EDTA) compared to standard sequential (SC) and continuous (CC) chelation protocols in removing the smear layer and dentine erosion. Materials and methods: The concentration of CPC was determined by pilot research based on surface tension and contact angle (0.2%). In the current study, sixty single roots-human mandibular premolars were divided into five groups (n = 12) according to irrigation protocol:sequential chelation using CPC-modified EDTA; conventional Sequential chelation using EDTA; continuous chelation using NaOCl mixed with HEDP; NaOCl alone and normal saline alone. The roots were separated longitudinally to evaluate the smear layer and dentine erosion utilizing SEM; and the obtained data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: Similar effectiveness was observed between the sequential and continuous chelation protocols when EDTA alone was used (P > 0.05), However, CPC-modified EDTA used in the sequential protocol showed significantly greater smear layer removal than continuous chelation protocol particularly in the apical third(P < 0.05), while a similar effect on dentin erosion was observed among groups (P > 0.05). Conclusions: The addition of a surfactant to the root canal irrigant showed better results; however, the difference was statistically significant only in the apical third At the apical third, CPC-modified EDTA demonstrated significantly better smear layer removal compared to the CC protocol, while showing a similar effect on dentin erosion compared to both SC and CC protocols.
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.