An analysis in vivo of intracanal bacterial load before and after chemo-mechanical preparation: A comparative analysis of two irrigants and two activation techniques
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The goals of this randomized double-blind trial were to assess the antimicrobial activity in vivo of Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) vs. chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) used in combination either with EndoActivator® or IRRI S® files in patients with apical periodontitis. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 120 patients with apical periodontitis (in single or multiple root canals) were randomly assigned to the four irrigation protocols outlined below: Group A: 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) + EndoActivator®; Group B: 5.25% NaOCl + IRRI S® files; Group C: 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) + EndoActivator®; Group D: 2% CHX + IRRI S® files. Paper points were used to collect microbiological samples before (1A samples) and after (1B samples) irrigation. Viable colony-forming units (CFU) were quantified twice: (1) without speciation, and (2) only for Enterococcus Faecalis(EF). Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 22.0 for Windows. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between NaOCl and CHX in the reduction of CFU; in fact, reduction was < 93% for the two irrigants. Conversely, statistically significant differences were found between the two activation techniques (sonic and ultrasonic) in the reduction of Enterococcus Faecalis(EF). Thus, the effectiveness of ultrasonic activation was significantly higher (< 93%; p=0.012) as compared to sonic activation. Following the combination of the two irrigants with the two activation techniques (groups A, B, C and D), significant differences were observed between group A and B (p=0.025) in the reduction of EF populations, reaching up to 94%. CONCLUSIONS: NaClO and CHX are effective in reducing intracanal bacterial load. Ultrasonic activation is the most effective activation technique in reducing EF populations. KEY WORDS: Chlorhexidine gluconate, sodium hypochlorite, ultrasonic irrigation, sonic irrigation, apical periodontitis, Enterococcus faecalis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".