ArticleBMC oral health2026
Comparative in vitro evaluation of sonic, passive ultrasonic, and Er: YAG laser-activated irrigation on Enterococcus faecalis reduction and smear layer/debris removal in root canals.
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPersistent intraradicular infection remains a major cause of endodontic treatment failure because conventional syringe irrigation may not adequately reach the apical third, dentinal tubules, and canal irregularities. The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the antimicrobial efficacy and smear layer/debris removal ability of sonic activation, passive ultrasonic irrigation, and Er: YAG laser-activated irrigation using photon-induced photoacoustic streaming (PIPS), relative to conventional syringe irrigation, in prepared root canals infected with a mono-species Enterococcus faecalis biofilm.
methodsSixty extracted single-rooted mandibular second premolars were prepared, sterilized, inoculated with E. faecalis, and randomly allocated to conventional syringe irrigation, sonic activation, passive ultrasonic irrigation, or Er: YAG/PIPS activation (n = 15). All groups received 2.5% sodium hypochlorite. Post-irrigation bacterial load was quantified as log10 CFU/mL, and smear layer/debris removal in the apical, middle, and coronal thirds was assessed by scanning electron microscopy using a five-point score. CFU values were analysed by one-way ANOVA with Tukey's post hoc test, and SEM scores by the Kruskal-Wallis test with Dunn's multiple-comparison test. Inter-examiner agreement was assessed using Cohen's kappa. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsBacterial load differed significantly among groups (F(3, 56) = 85.11, p < 0.001). Mean log10 CFU/mL values were 6.41 ± 0.30 for conventional irrigation, 5.37 ± 0.26 for sonic activation, 4.12 ± 0.24 for passive ultrasonic irrigation, and 4.28 ± 0.27 for Er: YAG/PIPS activation. Passive ultrasonic and Er: YAG/PIPS activation produced significantly lower bacterial loads than sonic activation and conventional irrigation, with no significant difference between the ultrasonic and laser groups (p = 0.452). SEM scores also differed significantly (H = 38.9, p < 0.001). Overall median scores were 4.5 (IQR 4-5), 3 (IQR 3-4), and 2 (IQR 2-3) for conventional, sonic, and both ultrasonic and laser activation, respectively.
conclusionsAll tested activation methods improved root canal disinfection and smear layer/debris removal compared with conventional syringe irrigation. Passive ultrasonic irrigation and Er: YAG/PIPS activation were more effective than sonic activation and showed comparable performance. These methods may be useful adjuncts to sodium hypochlorite irrigation, although clinical studies are needed to confirm their clinical effectiveness.
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.