Comparative Evaluation of the Efficacy of Chlorhexidine, Sodium Hypochlorite, the Diode Laser and Saline in Reducing the Microbial Count in Primary Teeth Root Canals – An In Vivo Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: One of the primary goals of pulpectomy is to decrease the sum total of microorganisms and disinfect the tooth root canal system. To achieve this, mechanical preparation, irrigation, disinfection and obturation of the root canal is necessary. The present study was set out to evaluate the difference in the antibacterial efficacy of primary teeth root canals either irrigated with chlorhexidine, saline, and sodium hypochlorite or irradiated with a soft tissue diode laser (980 nm, Photon Plus, Zolar Tech & Mfg Co. Inc, Ontario, Canada). Methods: Sixty primary teeth of children requiring pulpectomy were divided into 4 groups of 15 each, group 1 (2% chlorhexidine), group 2 (1% sodium hypochlorite), group 3 (laser irradiation) and group 4 (saline). Pulp tissue was extirpated from the canals and the samples were collected using sterile absorbent paper points. After cleaning and shaping, the root canals of the teeth in each group were irrigated using sodium hypochlorite, chlorhexidine, and saline or were irradiated with the laser. The samples were obtained again and sent for microbiological examination. Results: The colony-forming unit (CFU) counts from pre-disinfection sample served as a baseline for comparisons throughout the study. The mean bacterial colony counts of all the isolated bacteria reduced after irrigation or irradiation. Intergroup comparisons showed no significant difference when groups 1, 2, and 3 were compared to each other (P>0.05). However, a significant difference was seen when groups 1, 2, 3 were compared to group 4 (P<0.05). Conclusion: Two percent chlorhexidine, 1% sodium hypochlorite and laser irradiation succeeded in reducing the root canal infection. Hence, diode laser irradiation may be a possible supplement to existing protocols for disinfecting the root canal system.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".