Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42260197›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2026

A retrospective pragmatic clinical study of healing and predictors of success following gentlewave and conventional endodontic irrigation.

Ather Amber, Dybdal-Hargreaves Nicholas, Thakkar Shilpa, Slykhous Rene, Chrepa Vanessa, Carrico Caroline, Nikita B Ruparel

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Ather AmberCommonwealth Endodontics, 3107 Hungary Spring Rd, VA, 23228, Richmond, USA.
Dybdal-Hargreaves NicholasDepartment of Endodontics, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, TX, 78229, San Antonio, USA.
Thakkar ShilpaDepartment of Endodontics, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, TX, 78229, San Antonio, USA.
Slykhous ReneDepartment of Endodontics, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, TX, 78229, San Antonio, USA.
Chrepa VanessaDepartment of Endodontics, Rutgers School of Dental Medicine, 110 Bergen St, Newark, NJ, 07103, USA.
Carrico CarolineDepartment of Dental Public Health and Policy, Virginia Commonwealth University Philips Institute for Oral Health Research, VCU School of Dentistry, Research Administration, PO Box 980566, 521 N. 11th St, VA, 23298, Richmond, USA.
Nikita B RuparelDepartment of Endodontics, University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, TX, 78229, San Antonio, USA. ruparel@uthscsa.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis retrospective pragmatic study aimed to evaluate and compare the healing outcomes of the multisonic GentleWave irrigation system with conventional syringe-needle irrigation used for non-surgical endodontic treatment.

methodsThe study included 46 teeth that underwent nonsurgical endodontic treatment using two different irrigation protocols: (1) GentleWave irrigation system, and (2) Conventional syringe-needle irrigation, with a minimum follow-up of 1 year. Preoperative and follow-up data from treatment records, including clinical signs and symptoms, periapical radiographs, and cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images when available, were collected. Two independent evaluators scored the radiographs and CBCT scans based on the 2D periapical index (PAI) and 3D CBCT-PAI index, respectively. Based on clinical data and radiographic evaluation, treatment outcomes were categorized as healed, healing, or diseased. The success rate was assessed using both strict and loose criteria. Statistical analyses included Fisher's exact tests, and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests, where appropriate. The significance level was set at 0.05.

resultsBased on the periapical index and clinical evaluation, both the GentleWave and conventional groups exhibited comparable percentages of healed cases, corresponding to success rates of 69% and 70%, respectively (strict criteria). Using loose criteria, the success rate based on periapical imaging was 96% for conventional and 85% for GW groups. No statistically significant difference in healing outcomes/success rate was observed between the groups on both periapical radiograph and CBCT interpretation. Male sex, negative pulp vitality, presence of pre-operative periapical radiolucency (PARL), and absence of pre-operative symptoms were associated with reduced healing in the Conventional group. Pre-operative PARL and non-surgical root canal retreatment were associated with reduced healing in the GW group.

conclusionThere were no differences in success rates or healing outcomes of endodontic treatment between the GentleWave irrigation system and conventional syringe-needle irrigation at 12-month follow-up. The presence of pre-operative PARL was significantly correlated with reduced success in both groups. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study highlights similar success rates and healing outcomes for endodontic treatment with the GentleWave irrigation system compared to conventional syringe-needle irrigation at 12 months follow-up.

Indexed as

Root Canal IrrigantsRoot Canal PreparationRoot Canal TherapyTherapeutic IrrigationAdultCone-Beam Computed TomographyFemaleHumansMaleRetrospective StudiesTreatment OutcomeWound HealingRoot Canal IrrigantsCone beam computed tomographyEndodonticOutcomeRoot canal treatment, irrigation, GentleWave

Identifiers

PMID42260197

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.