ArticleBMC oral health2026
Comparative efficacy of ultrasonic, diode laser, and manual irrigant activation around an apically separated instrument: an in vitro 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
backgroundThe fracture of a nickel-titanium instrument in the apical third of a root canal presents a significant clinical challenge, as it creates a compacted barrier of dentinal debris and smear layer that is shielded by a vapor lock, severely limiting irrigant efficacy. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of Ultrasonic Activation (UAI), Diode Laser-Activated Irrigation (LAI), and Manual Dynamic Agitation (MDA) in overcoming this barrier by evaluating both irrigant penetration and direct debris removal.
methodsNinety human mandibular first molars with standardized, non-bypassable apically fractured instruments were divided into two parts. Part 1 (n = 45) assessed irrigant penetration using Confocal Laser Scanning Microscopy (CLSM) after activation of Rhodamine B dye. Part 2 (n = 45) evaluated debris and smear layer removal using Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) and the Hülsmann scoring system. In both parts, teeth were randomly assigned to one of three final irrigation activation protocols (n = 15 each): MDA (as a control group), UAI, or LAI (970 nm diode laser at 2.0 W).
resultsCLSM analysis revealed that UAI achieved a significantly greater penetration area in the apical section compared to LAI (p = 0.04). Crucially, UAI was the only technique that showed no significant difference in penetration area between the obstructed apical section and the unobstructed control section (p = 0.10). SEM evaluation demonstrated that both UAI and LAI were significantly more effective at removing debris and smear layer than MDA (p < 0.05), with no statistically significant difference between UAI and LAI (p ≥ 0.76).
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this in-vitro model, ultrasonic activation produced greater apical penetration area than diode laser activation, while ultrasonic and diode laser activation produced significantly better debris and smear-layer removal than manual dynamic agitation. No statistical difference was observed between ultrasonic and diode laser activation for SEM-based cleaning scores. Further studies incorporating thermal safety assessment and biofilm models are required before clinical recommendations can be made.
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.