ArticleLasers in medical science2026
Comparative efficacy of irrigation activation systems in root canal cleanliness: a region-specific analysis of debris and smear layer removal.
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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the efficacy of four irrigation activation systems against conventional needle irrigation (CNI) in removing debris and smear layer from root canal. Forty human single-rooted teeth premolars were instrumented to a consistent size and randomly divided into five groups (n = 8/group), namely CNI, and other activation groups including EDDY, Gentlefile, passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), and shock wave-enhanced emission photoacoustic streaming (SWEEPS) techniques. After irrigation, the roots were split longitudinally and debris and smear layer in coronal, middle, and apical thirds were evaluated by scanning electron microscope (SEM). Scores were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis test followed by Dunn's post-hoc test with Bonferroni correction. For debris removal, the EDDY and SWEEPS groups showed significantly lower scores than CNI in the coronal and apical thirds (p < 0.05), while PUI and Gentlefile did not; in the middle third, all activation groups achieved significantly lower scores than CNI (p < 0.05). For smear layer removal, only SWEEPS was superior to CNI in the coronal third (p < 0.05); in the middle third, all activation groups achieved significantly lower scores than CNI (p < 0.05); in the apical third, EDDY and SWEEPS performed better than CNI (p < 0.01), but PUI and Gentlefile did not. Activated irrigation techniques show region- and target-dependent efficacy. All activation groups demonstrated significant improvements over CNI in the middle third, but only EDDY and SWEEPS maintained this significant improvement in the apical third.
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.