Front. Oral. Health Frontiers in Oral Health Front. Oral. Health 2673-4842 Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/froh.2022.876265 Oral Health Correction Corrigendum: Irrigating Solutions and Activation Methods Used in Clinical Endodontics: A Systematic Review Tonini Riccardo 1 Salvadori Matteo 1 Audino Elisabetta 1 Sauro Salvatore 2 3 Garo Maria Luisa 1 * Salgarello Stefano 1 1Department of Medical and Surgery Specialties, Radiological Sciences and Public Health, Dental School, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy 2Department of Dentistry, Dental Biomaterials and Minimally Invasive Dentistry, Cardenal Herrera-CEU University, Alfara del Patriarca, Spain 3Department of Therapeutic Dentistry, I.M. Sechenov First Moscow State Medical University, Moscow, Russia

Edited and reviewed by: Oleh Andrukhov, University Dental Clinic Vienna, Austria

 *Correspondence: Maria Luisa Garo marilu.garo@gmail.com

This article was submitted to Oral Infections and Microbes, a section of the journal Frontiers in Oral Health

 24 03 2022 2022 3 876265 15 02 2022 28 02 2022 Copyright © 2022 Tonini, Salvadori, Audino, Sauro, Garo and Salgarello. 2022 Tonini, Salvadori, Audino, Sauro, Garo and Salgarello

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

 A Corrigendum on Irrigating Solutions and Activation Methods Used in Clinical Endodontics: A Systematic Review by Tonini, R., Salvadori, M., Audino, E., Sauro, S., Garo, M. L., and Salgarello, S. (2022). Front. Oral. Health. 3:838043. doi: 10.3389/froh.2022.838043 bacterial load irrigating solutions periapical periodontitis biofilm root canal agents

In the original article, there was a mistake in Table 2, as published. In the column “Main Outcome,” there were non-clear indications of outcomes. The corrected Table 2 appears below.

Characteristics of the studies.

First author Year Objective Participants Tooth
Sample size Type Infectious status Working length Main outcomes
Malkhassian et al. [36] 2009 To assess the antibacterial efficacy of a final rinse with BioPure MTAD and intracanal medication with 2% CHX 30 (15 males, 15 females, mean age 51.9 years, age range 25–78) 30 (MTAD:15; Saline group: 15) Single-rooted and multi-rooted teeth (only one root for patient was considered) Apical periodontitis (primary treatment) 2 mm Cultivable Bacteria (CFUs/mL) •MTAD: BT: 3.52 × 105 ± 5.83 × 105-AT: 6.04 ± 1.13 × 101 •Saline: BT: 5.41 × 104 ± 1.04 × 105-AT: 6.66 ± 1.01 × 101 •Comparison between groups: no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05)
Huffaker et al. [37] 2010 To evaluate the ability of a new passive sonic irrigation system (EndoActivator) and compare it with that of standard syringe irrigation 84 patients 84 (EndoActivator: 42; Needle irrigation: 42) Not Reported Apical periodontitis (primary treatment) 1 mm Detectable bacteria •0.5% NaOCl activated with the EndoVac: AT: 25/42 teeth (60%) •0.5% NaOCl without activation: AT: 27/42 teeth (52%) •Comparison between groups: no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05)
Rocas et al. [38] 2016 To compare the antibacterial effectiveness of 2.5% NaOCl and 2% CHX 50 patients (27 males, 23 females, mean age 29 years, age range: 13.52) 50 (2.5% NaOCl: 25; 2% CHX: 25) Single-rooted teeth Apical periodontitis (primary treatment) 3 mm Detectable bacteria •2.5% NaOCl: 25/25 (100%) before treatment−11/25 (44%) after treatment •2% CHX: 25/25 (100%) before treatment−10/25 (40%) after treatment •Comparison between groups: no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) •Number of bacterial cells: •2.5% NaOCl: BT: 1.43 × 104; AT: 5.49 × 102 (p < 0.001)−95.5% reduction •2% CHX: BT: 8.77 × 104; AT: 2.81 × 103 (p < 0.001); 95.4% reduction •Comparison between groups: no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05)
Zandi et al. [39] 2016 To compare the antibacterial effects of 1% NaOCl and 2% CHX 49 (29 males, 20 females, mean age = 50, age range 21–91) 49 (NaOCl: 20; CHX: 29) Single-rooted and multi-rooted teeth (only one root for patient was considered) Apical periodontitis (secondary treatment) 1 mm Detectable bacteria: •1% NaOCl: 7/20 positive •2% CHX: 12/29 positive •No statistically significant difference between groups (p > 0.05) •Number of bacterial cells: •1% NaOCl: BT: 7.96 × 104-AT: 2.95 × 102 (p < 0.01)−99.6% reduction •2% CHX: BT: 5.37 × 105-AT: 1.10 × 103 (p < 0.01)−99.8% reduction
Ballal et al. [40] 2019 To assess whether dual rinse HEDP alter the clinical efficacy of NaOCl or adds any untoward clinical effects 60 (35 males, 25 females, age range 18–65 years) 60 (HEDP: 30; NaOCl alore: 30) Single-rooted and multi-rooted teeth (only one root for patient was considered) Asymptomatic apical periodontitis (primary treatment) Determined using an electronic apex locator Detectable bacteria •HEDP: BT: 30/30–AT: 15/30 •2.5% NaOC: BT: 30/30–AT: 12/30 (40%) •Comparison between groups after treatment: no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05)
Ballal et al. [41] 2020 To compare four NaOCl irrigation activation systems 80 (50 males, 30 females, mean age 41) 80 (PUI: 20; F-file: 20; XP-endo finisher: 20; Needle irrigation: 20) Single-rooted and multi-rooted teeth (only one root for patient was considered) Asymptomatic apical periodontitis with and without periapical lesions Determined using radiographs and an apex locator Cultivable Bacteria (CFUs/mL) •XP-endo Finisher: BT: median: 12.20; sd: 45.87–AT: median: 0.008; sd: 0.0001 •Needle irrigation: BT: median: 12.40; sd: 9.2–AT: median: 1.09, sd: 3.56 •F-files: BT: median: 20.65, sd: 69.23–AT: median: 0.34, sd: 4.72 •Ultrasonic: BT: median: 44.82, sd: 16.60–AT: median: 0.0055; sd: 0.032
Orozco et al. [42] 2020 To evaluate the effectiveness of passive ultrasonic irrigation compared to conventional needle irrigation 20 (10 females, 10 males) 20 (PUI: 10; Needle irrigation: 10) Single-rooted and multi-rooted teeth (only one root for patient was considered) Primary endodontic infection 1 mm Cultivable Bacteria (CFUs/mL) •PUI: BT: 25.8 × 105 ± 4.70 × 105-AT: 42 ± 119 •Needle irrigation: BT: 2.31 × 105 ± 4.70 × 105-AT: 1.76 × 103 ± 3.31 × 103 •Comparison between groups after treatment: no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05)

AT, After Treatment; BT, before treatment; PUI, Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation.

Following the previous point, Figure 2 has been updated. To avoid repeating data “Outcome,” already reported in Table 2, the authors modified Figure 2, which appears corrected below.

Risk of Bias—ROB2.

Following the previous points, the description in the original article has been updated. Two corrections have been made to section Results, subsection Irrigating Solutions. The corrected paragraphs appear below:

Rocas et al. [38] compared the effectiveness of 2% CHX with that of 2.5% NaOCl using a total volume of 15 mL for both irrigants but did not report the application time. In both groups, the mean number of bacterial cells decreased significantly after irrigation (p < 0.01). The rate of reduction in detectable bacteria was 40 and 44% in the treatment group (2% CHX) and in the control group (2.5% NaOCl), respectively. However, no statistically significant difference was observed upon comparing the mean number of bacterial cells between groups (p > 0.05) [38].

Zandi et al. [39] compared the effectiveness of 2% CHX with that of 1% NaOCl using a total volume of 10 mL for both irrigants but did not report the application time. In both groups, the mean number of bacterial cells decreased significantly after irrigation (p < 0.01), and the rate of reduction was higher than 99% (99.6% in the treatment group and 99.8% in the control group). However, no statistically significant difference was observed upon comparing the detectable bacteria between groups (p > 0.05).

The authors apologize for these errors and state that they do not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.

Publisher's Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.