ArticleLasers in medical science2026
Comparison of Laser and Conventional Root Canal Disinfection Protocols in an dual-biofilm in-vitro model.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To compare the effect of laser and other four traditional root canal disinfection methods on the removal of microorganisms in the root canal of refractory periapical periodontitis. 155 single-canal premolars were made into 13 mm long standard roots, infected with E. faecalis and C. albicans, randomly divided into five groups, and treated with A: lateral syringe irrigation group; B: ultrasonic irrigation group; C: sonic irrigation group; D: Er∶ YAG laser in SWEEPS mode group; E: photodynamic therapy group for root canal irrigation. Root canal samples were collected with 25# K files before and after irrigation. The irrigation effectiveness was quantitatively analyzed by flat colony counting method and observed by scanning electron microscope and confocal laser scanning electron microscope. The Er∶ YAG laser group had the highest clearance efficiency for E. faecalis (P < 0.05), and the ultrasonic irrigation effect was lower than that of Er∶ YAG laser (P < 0.05), while there was no difference between that of sonic irrigation group, photodynamic therapy group and lateral syringe irrigation group (P > 0.05). These five methods were all able to clear C. albicans well without significant difference (P > 0.05). SEM and confocal laser SEM showed that Er∶ YAG laser groups were more effective at removing smear layers and total bacteria. The performance of Er∶ YAG laser eliminating E. faecalis and C. albicans and the smear layer was found superior in the root canal of refractory apical periodontitis. It is recommended to employ Er∶ YAG laser for subsequent root canal decontamination following root canal preparation. Clinical trial number: Not applicable.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.