ReviewInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2026
Assessing the Effectiveness of Herbal Intracanal Irrigants in Deciduous Molars: A Systematic Review.
Review in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims and background: Pulpectomy, a crucial procedure in pediatric endodontics, involves the complete removal of infected pulp tissue and serves as a standard intervention for addressing pulp pathologies. The success of pulpectomy hinges not only on the meticulous debridement and disinfection of the root canal system but also on the judicious selection of intracanal irrigants employed during the procedure. Traditional endodontic irrigants have predominantly featured synthetic chemicals. This departure from synthetic agents to herbal irrigants is motivated by apprehensions regarding potential side effects and the environmental impact associated with conventional chemical agents. The aim of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of herbal intracanal irrigants compared to sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) when used in pulpectomy of primary molars. Methods: The review's procedure was prepared in accordance with the Cochrane Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis 2020 Statement. A thorough search of PubMed, Google Scholar, Cochrane CENTRAL, Scopus, Web of Science, and LILACS was done for articles published between January, 2011 and June, 2024 (14 years) in order to identify all peer-reviewed research pertinent to the review's question. Only those articles that met the inclusion criteria were selected. Literature abstracts and full-text articles were analyzed in this review. A total of three articles that adhered to the eligibility requirements were ultimately chosen for inclusion. All were randomized clinical trials that evaluated the clinical and radiographic success or outcomes of herbal medicine. Results: The overall clinical and radiographic outcomes were not significantly different in all the studies. All the included studies recorded high risk of bias. Conclusion: The review concluded that herbal extracts can be considered as effective as their chemical counterparts, with the added advantage of potentially fewer side effects. Clinical significance: The efficacy of herbal irrigants in pediatric pulpectomy is comparable to that of NaOCl, with the potential advantages of increased patient acceptance, safety, and biocompatibility. How to cite this article: Raj M, Gurunathan D, Ramakrishnan M, et al. Assessing the Effectiveness of Herbal Intracanal Irrigants in Deciduous Molars: A Systematic Review. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2026;19(4):507-515.
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.