ArticleEuropean oral research2018
Comparative evaluation of apical sealing ability of different root canal sealers.
Article in European oral research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Exploring the Most Effective Apical Seal for Contemporary Bioceramic and Conventional Endodontic Sealers Using Three Obturation Techniques.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Trial
- Epoxy resin-based sealers modified with clay nanoparticles: Evaluation of their physicochemical and mechanical properties.European journal of oral sciences · 2026Article
- Comparative Apical Sealing Performance of Bioceramic and Resin-Based Sealers: A Fluid Filtration Analysis.Iranian endodontic journal · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Sealing Ability, Bond Strength, and Antimicrobial Properties of Endodontic Sealers: AnJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- Stereomicroscopic Evaluation of the Apical Sealing Ability of Different Root Canal Sealers (Endoseal, Apexit, MTA Fillapex, Ceraseal) Using Diaphanization Technique.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2024Article
- Stereomicroscopic evaluation of sealing ability of four different root canal sealers: an in-vitro study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Biological properties versus solubility of endodontic sealers and cements.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2024Review
- Assessing the Sealing Performance and Clinical Outcomes of Endodontic Treatment in Patients with Chronic Apical Periodontitis Using Epoxy Resin and Calcium Salicylate Seals.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Evaluation of apical leakage after immediate and delayed postspace preparation using different root canal sealers: AnJournal of conservative dentistry : JCDArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to compare the short and long term apical sealing ability of different root canal sealers. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty-five extracted human anterior single-root teeth were used. The coronal part of each tooth was removed and the root canals were prepared with NiTi rotary instruments. Teeth were divided into 5 study groups; Group I: MTA Fillapex (Angelus, Brazil); Group II: Sealapex (Sybron-Kerr, Romulus, MI, USA) and Group III: AH Plus (Dentsply, Konstanz, Germany) (n=15) and negative and positive control groups (n=5). The quality of root canal sealing was assessed by a fluid filtration method performed at 24 h and 180-day time intervals. Kruskal Wallis and Mann Whitney U tests were used to compare the groups.
resultsAt 24 h evaluation, MTA Fillapex presented significantly less microleakage than the Sealapex and AH Plus (p<0.05). At long term interval (180-day), Sealapex and AH Plus presented significantly less microleakage than the MTA Fillapex (p<0.05).
conclusionSealapex and AH Plus showed significantly better sealing abilities than MTA Fillapex in the long term.
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.