Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29988252›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry

Assessment of cell viability in four novel endodontic sealers.

Vassiliki Taraslia, Ema Anastasiadou, Christina Lignou, Georgios Keratiotis, Anastasia Agrafioti, Evangelos G Kontakiotis

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of dentistry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Calcium silicate-based root canal sealers: a literature review.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2020
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Vassiliki TarasliaDepartment of Genetics and Gene Therapy, Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Ema AnastasiadouDepartment of Genetics and Gene Therapy, Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Christina LignouDepartment of Genetics and Gene Therapy, Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Georgios KeratiotisDepartment of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Anastasia AgrafiotiDepartment of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
Evangelos G KontakiotisDepartment of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Athens, Greece.
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens · GRBiomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens · GRAcademy of Athens · GR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate the viability of human periodontal ligament (PDL) cells on MTA-Fillapex, GuttaFlow 2, TotalFill Sealer, and BioRoot™ RCS in comparison to conventional epoxy resin-based (AH Plus) and zinc oxide-eugenol-based (Roth's 801) sealers. MATERIALS AND

methodsSealers were divided into two groups, and five coverslips for each material per group were prepared. In the first group, PDLs were added immediately after the preparation of sealers (Fresh Group), and in the second, PDLs were added after 24 h. PDLs were cultured for 72 h and afterward, counted using standard hematocytometry. A Mann-Whitney U-test and Kruskal-Wallis test were used for the statistical analysis. The level of significance was set at 5%. Furthermore, cell morphology was assessed by confocal microscopy.

resultsThe number of viable cells for the 24 h-set groups was higher than the freshly mixed in all sealers except Roth's 801. In both groups, GuttaFlow 2 presented the highest number of viable cells. In a descending order of cells' survival, TotalFill, BioRoot, and MTA-Fillapex are following and the conventional sealers, AH Plus and Roth's 801, seem not to exhibit the biological properties of the others. Cells grown on GuttaFlow 2, TotalFill, and BioRoot were observed to be well-formed. In contrast, MTA-Fillapex exhibited untypical morphology. No cells were detected on the surfaces of AH Plus, as well as Roth's 801.

conclusionsAll novel sealers presented increased cell viability in comparison to conventional sealers. GuttaFlow 2 exhibited the highest cell viability.

Indexed as

Cell morphologycells viabilitysealers

Identifiers

PMID29988252
PMCPMC6004808
OpenAlexW2806838488

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.