Skip to main content

CORRECTION article

Front. Oral. Health, 24 March 2022
Sec. Oral Infections and Microbes
Volume 3 - 2022 | https://doi.org/10.3389/froh.2022.876265
This article is part of the Research Topic Frontiers in Oral Health: Highlights in Oral Infections and Microbes 2021/2 View all 5 articles

Corrigendum: Irrigating Solutions and Activation Methods Used in Clinical Endodontics: A Systematic Review

This article is a correction to:

  1. Irrigating Solutions and Activation Methods Used in Clinical Endodontics: A Systematic Review

    1. Read original article
\nRiccardo ToniniRiccardo Tonini1Matteo SalvadoriMatteo Salvadori1Elisabetta AudinoElisabetta Audino1Salvatore Sauro,Salvatore Sauro2,3Maria Luisa Garo Maria Luisa Garo1*Stefano SalgarelloStefano Salgarello1
  • 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

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

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.

TABLE 2
www.frontiersin.org

Table 2. Characteristics of the studies

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.

FIGURE 2
www.frontiersin.org

Figure 2. 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.

Keywords: bacterial load, irrigating solutions, periapical periodontitis, biofilm, root canal agents

Citation: Tonini R, Salvadori M, Audino E, Sauro S, Garo ML and Salgarello S (2022) Corrigendum: Irrigating Solutions and Activation Methods Used in Clinical Endodontics: A Systematic Review. Front. Oral. Health 3:876265. doi: 10.3389/froh.2022.876265

Received: 15 February 2022; Accepted: 28 February 2022;
Published: 24 March 2022.

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

Copyright © 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.

*Correspondence: Maria Luisa Garo, bWFyaWx1Lmdhcm8mI3gwMDA0MDtnbWFpbC5jb20=

Disclaimer: 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.