ArticleIranian endodontic journal2017
Antifungal Activity of Two Root Canal Sealers against Different Strains of
Article in Iranian endodontic journal, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Antimicrobial efficacy of commercially available endodontic bioceramic root canal sealers: A systematic review.PloS one · 2019Pooled it
- The effects of mineral trioxide aggregate on osteo/odontogenic potential of mesenchymal stem cells: a comprehensive and systematic literature review.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2020Review
- Composition and physicochemical properties of calcium silicate based sealers: A review article.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2017Review
- Evaluation of Antibacterial Efficacy of Photodynamic Therapy vs. 2.5% NaOCl againstJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2017Review
- Article
- Genotoxicity, Bioactivity and Clinical Properties of Calcium Silicate Based Sealers: A Literature Review.Iranian endodontic journal · 2017Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMicroorganisms and microbial products are the main etiologic factors in pulp and periapical diseases. The present study aimed to compare the antifungal activity of two different sealers, AH-26 and MTA Fillapex against three strains of METHODS AND MATERIALS: The microorganisms used in this study were
resultsThe antifungal activity of both sealers was similar in the indirect method. The antifungal activity of both sealers in the direct method was similar against
conclusionThe total antifungal effect of MTA Fillapex sealer was significantly less than AH-26 sealer in direct method. The antifungal effect of both sealers was similar in indirect method.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.