Disinfection Efficacy of Laser Activation on Different Forms and Concentrations of Sodium Hypochlorite Root Canal Irrigant against Enterococcus faecalis in Primary Teeth
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Photoactivated disinfection with sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) has improved primary root canal treatment outcomes. This in vitro study aims to assess and compare the disinfecting efficacy of 2.5% sodium hypochlorite solution and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite gel, without laser activation and accompanied by laser activation, on Enterococcus faecalis-contaminated primary teeth root canals. After one month of incubating extracted teeth specimens with E. faecalis, 36 specimens were randomly divided into two groups: Group A (conventional method without laser-activated irrigation) and Group B (with laser-activated irrigation). Each group was further divided into three subgroups, with six samples in each subgroup. Subgroup 1 received irrigation with normal saline, Subgroup 2 with 2.5% sodium hypochlorite solution, and Subgroup 3 with 5.25% sodium hypochlorite gel. Diode laser activation at 810 nm was used in Group B. Bacterial colony counts were measured before and after the intervention. Student’s t-test and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with Tukey’s post hoc test were used for statistical analysis. The significance level was set at p < 0.05. Microbial analysis revealed no bacterial growth in samples irrigated with 5.25% sodium hypochlorite gel activated with the laser. Activation with the laser significantly (p = 0.02) improved the disinfection ability of the irrigant compared to the non-activation group. The disinfection ability of sodium hypochlorite gel was better than that of saline (p = 0.02); however, it was comparable to that of sodium hypochlorite solution (p = 0.67). Conclusion: Root canal irrigation with 5.25% sodium hypochlorite gel activated with an 810 nm diode laser resulted in complete eradication of Enterococcus faecalis, indicating its effectiveness as an endodontic disinfection treatment modality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".