ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Evaluation of Depth of Irrigant Penetration Using Different Irrigation Systems: An In Vivo Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionEffective irrigation is essential for successful root canal treatment because mechanical instrumentation alone cannot adequately clean the complex anatomy of the root canal system. Various irrigant activation techniques have been developed to enhance irrigant penetration into the apical third and anatomically inaccessible regions; however, clinical evidence comparing their penetration efficiency remains limited. The aim of our study was to compare the depth of irrigant penetration achieved using conventional manual irrigation, passive ultrasonic irrigation, sonic irrigation, air-sonic irrigation, and diode laser-assisted irrigation in the mesial canals of mandibular first molars. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis in vivo study included 50 mandibular first molars requiring primary root canal treatment. Following standardized biomechanical preparation, the teeth were managed using one of five irrigation activation techniques: conventional manual irrigation, passive ultrasonic irrigation, sonic irrigation, air-sonic irrigation (PATS Vario; Innovations Endo, Nashik, India), or diode laser-assisted irrigation (n = 10 per group). Iohexol contrast medium was used to evaluate irrigant penetration, and standardized digital radiographs were obtained. The linear distance between the working length and the maximum extent of dye penetration was measured using dedicated imaging software. Data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey's post hoc test, with the level of statistical significance set at p < 0.05.
resultsIrrigant penetration differed significantly among the five irrigation activation techniques (p < 0.001, η² = 0.55). Diode laser-assisted irrigation showed the greatest apical penetration (0.33 ± 0.26 mm), followed by sonic irrigation (0.72 ± 0.42 mm), PATS air-sonic irrigation (0.87 ± 0.59 mm), passive ultrasonic irrigation (1.23 ± 0.78 mm), and conventional manual irrigation (2.27 ± 0.88 mm). Pairwise analysis demonstrated significantly better penetration with diode laser-assisted, sonic, PATS air-sonic, and passive ultrasonic irrigation than with conventional manual irrigation (all p < 0.05). Diode laser-assisted irrigation also outperformed passive ultrasonic irrigation (p = 0.028), whereas no significant differences were observed between diode laser-assisted irrigation and sonic or PATS air-sonic irrigation, or among the sonic, PATS air-sonic, and passive ultrasonic irrigation groups (all p > 0.05).
conclusionIrrigant activation significantly improved apical irrigant penetration compared with conventional manual irrigation. Among the evaluated techniques, diode laser-assisted irrigation demonstrated the greatest penetration efficiency, suggesting its potential to enhance canal disinfection in clinical endodontic practice. Sonic and PATS air-sonic irrigation also provided favorable penetration and may serve as effective alternatives when laser systems are unavailable.
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.