ArticleLasers in medical science2026
Histological evaluation of energy-intensive irrigation systems for debridement of uninstrumented oval root canals with different access cavity designs.
Article in Lasers in medical science, 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
This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of energy-intensive irrigation activation systems for removing residual pulp tissue in completely uninstrumented oval root canals with different access cavity designs, using histological analysis. Seventy extracted human mandibular premolars with oval root canal morphology and organic tissue remnants were randomly assigned to five irrigation protocols: syringe-needle irrigation (control), Er: YAG laser (SWEEPS, Fotona), Er, Cr: YSGG laser (Waterlase iPlus, Biolase), multisonic high-speed irrigation (GentleWave G4 with ProControl, SonEndo, 5-min protocol), and an extended multisonic protocol (9-min). Each group was further divided according to access cavity design into ultra-conservative and traditional cavities (n = 7). Following irrigation with sodium hypochlorite and EDTA, serial histological sections from the apical third were prepared, and the percentage of residual pulp tissue was quantified using ImageJ software. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA with Bonferroni multiple comparisons (p < 0.05). The irrigation activation system significantly affected residual tissue percentages (p < 0.001; η²=0.736), whereas access cavity design showed no significant effect (p = 0.965). Syringe-needle irrigation demonstrated the highest residual tissue values (≈ 20%). Both laser activation systems significantly reduced residual tissue compared with needle irrigation but showed comparable performance (≈ 4-6%). Multisonic high-speed irrigation further improved canal cleanliness, with the 5-min protocol showing lower residual tissue values (≈ 2%), and the extended 9-min protocol achieving the lowest percentages (< 1%), approaching near-complete debridement. Within the limitations of this in vitro histological study, energy-intensive irrigation systems significantly improved the removal of residual pulp tissue in uninstrumented oval root canals. The extended multisonic irrigation protocol demonstrated the highest debridement efficiency under the tested conditions. These findings may inform future minimally invasive endodontic strategies; however, they should not be interpreted as supporting the clinical replacement of mechanical instrumentation.
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.