ArticleBMC oral health2026
Comparison of diode laser and sonic activation in the removal of root canal filling material from curved canals: an in-vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
backgroundRetreatment in curved root canals, particularly achieving complete canal cleanliness, remains a clinical challenge and an ongoing subject of investigation. This study evaluated the efficiency of sonically activated irrigation (EDDY) and diode laser-activated irrigation (DL) in removing filling material from simulated curved canals.
methodsThirty-three J-shaped resin blocks were instrumented to 25/06 apical size and obturated with single-cone resin sealer and gutta-percha. Retreatment was performed using ProTaper Universal Retreatment files. Samples were allocated to needle irrigation (NI, control), EDDY, or diode laser (DL) groups. NI and EDDY protocols were applied for 3 × 20 s, while the DL protocol consisted of four 5-second activation cycles. Sections at apical (2 mm), middle (6 mm), and coronal (10 mm) levels were examined at ×40 magnification. ImageJ, image analysis software was used to calculate the percentage of remaining obturation material. Two-way repeated measures ANOVA was used (p ≤ 0.05).
resultsEDDY achieved significantly superior cleaning at the apical 2 mm and middle 6 mm levels compared with both NI and DL (p < 0.001). DL showed no significantly better cleaning efficiency than NI at any level (p > 0.05). In both NI and DL groups, filling material removal effectiveness differed significantly among the apical, middle, and coronal thirds (p < 0.05). In the coronal third, no statistically significant differences were observed among all groups (p > 0.05).
conclusionAlthough none of the methods achieved the complete removal of filling materials, EDDY was significantly more effective than needle irrigation and diode laser activation in the apical and middle region of curved canals. These findings suggest that, to significantly improve apical cleanliness, clinicians should consider sonic activation during retreatment in curved canals.
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.