ArticleLasers in medical science2026
Different irrigation solutions in calcium hydroxide removal: Do high-frequency ultrasonic and laser activation make the difference?
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the effectiveness of different irrigation solutions and activation techniques in removing calcium hydroxide (CH) from standardized artificial grooves located in the apical third of root canals. Ninety extracted single-rooted human maxillary central incisors were instrumented using a standardized preparation protocol. Artificial grooves were created in the apical third of split roots and filled with CH paste. Specimens were randomly divided into two irrigation groups: 1.5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) + 0.1% octenidine dihydrochloride (OCT) or 1.5% NaOCl + 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). Each group was further subdivided according to the activation technique: conventional needle irrigation (CNI), passive ultrasonic activation (PUA), or laser-activated irrigation (LAI). Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests with Bonferroni correction (α = 0.05). Significant differences were observed among the groups (p < 0.001). OCT combined with PUA showed the lowest residual CH scores and performed significantly better than OCT + CNI. OCT demonstrated superior CH removal compared with EDTA under CNI and PUA conditions. The OCT + PUA protocol was the most effective approach for CH 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.