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

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

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

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.