ArticleBMC oral health2026
Evaluation of activated irrigation techniques for the removal of calcium hydroxide from simulated internal root resorption cavities: an in vitro comparative 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
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the calcium hydroxide [Ca(OH)₂] removal efficiency of six irrigation‑activation techniques and conventional syringe irrigation (control) from simulated internal root‑resorptive cavities in vitro. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeventy single-rooted human teeth were standardized to a length of 18 mm, prepared, and split longitudinally. A standardized hemispherical resorptive cavity was created in each root half; the halves were then reassembled and filled with premixed Ca(OH)₂. Specimens were incubated for 7 days and randomly allocated (n = 10) to seven groups: (1) conventional syringe irrigation (control), (2) manual dynamic agitation (MDA), (3) XP‑Endo Finisher, (4) sonic EDDY, (5) sonic EQ‑S, (6) ultrasonic Irrisafe, or (7) ultrasonic Ultra X. In each irrigation protocol, two 30 s activations with 10 mL 2.5% NaOCl were used followed by one 30 s activation with 5 mL 17% EDTA. Residual Ca(OH)₂ percentages (%) within the simulated resorptive cavity (primary outcome) and the entire root canal system, including the coronal, middle, and apical thirds (secondary outcomes) was quantified stereo-microscopically using ImageJ software. Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Friedman tests with Dunn-Bonferroni post hoc comparisons (α = 0.05).
resultsSignificant differences were observed among the tested groups (P ≤ 0.001). Within the simulated resorptive cavities, EDDY group demonstrated the significantly lowest percentage values of residual Ca(OH)₂ [median: 1.48%, IQR (0.65-1.59)] (P < 0.05) followed by XP-endo Finisher [median: 23.31%, IQR (16.61-24.83)] and Irrisafe [median: 36.34%, IQR (14.31-49.05)] groups. EDDY, XP-Endo Finisher and Irrisafe groups showed the significantly lowest overall (total) percentage values (P < 0.05), with no significant differences among them. Most irrigation protocols tested showed significant lower percentage values in the coronal third compared with the apical third, while no significant difference was detected between root thirds within the EDDY and Ultra X groups (P = 0.199, P = 0.182). None of the tested techniques achieved complete removal of Ca(OH)₂.
conclusionsActivated irrigation significantly enhances Ca(OH)₂ retrieval from internal resorptive defects; however, complete removal is not achieved with any of the tested techniques. EDDY demonstrates superior efficacy in removing Ca(OH)₂ specifically from simulated internal root resorption cavities. Across the entire root canal system, EDDY, XP-Endo Finisher, and Irrisafe demonstrate the highest overall efficacy for Ca(OH)₂ removal.
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.