Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32992852›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2020

Physicochemical and Antibacterial Properties of Novel, Premixed Calcium Silicate-Based Sealer Compared to Powder-Liquid Bioceramic Sealer.

Naji Kharouf, Youri Arntz, Ammar Eid, Jihed Zghal, Salvatore Sauro, Youssef Haikel, Davide Mancino

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 58 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
58citing papers in PubMed
14.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

58 citing papers in PubMed, 93 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Naji KharoufFaculté de Chirurgie Dentaire, Université de Strasbourg, 8 rue Sainte Elisabeth, 67000 Strasbourg, France.ORCID 0000-0001-6768-138X
Youri ArntzFaculté de Chirurgie Dentaire, Université de Strasbourg, 8 rue Sainte Elisabeth, 67000 Strasbourg, France.
Ammar EidDepartment of Endodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Damascus University, 0100 Damascus, Syria.
Jihed ZghalICube Laboratory, UMR 7357 CNRS, Mechanics Department, University of Strasbourg, 67000 Strasbourg, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5019-7177
Salvatore SauroDepartamento de Odontología, Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad CEU-Cardenal Herrera, C/Del Pozo (s/n), Alfara del Patriarca, 46115 Valencia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-2527-8776
Youssef HaikelFaculté de Chirurgie Dentaire, Université de Strasbourg, 8 rue Sainte Elisabeth, 67000 Strasbourg, France.
Davide MancinoFaculté de Chirurgie Dentaire, Université de Strasbourg, 8 rue Sainte Elisabeth, 67000 Strasbourg, France.
Inserm · FRCentre National de la Recherche Scientifique · FRDamascus University · SYSechenov University · RU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the physicochemical properties, filling ability, and antibacterial activity of a premixed calcium silicate-based sealer to those of a powder-liquid bioceramic sealer. Ceraseal (CS) and BioRoot (BR) materials were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy and energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy at 7 and 14 d of immersion in distilled water. The filling ability of the two sealers as well as the water contact angle, solubility, flow, roughness, crystalline microstructure, pH, and compressive strength were also evaluated. The antibacterial activity was assessed through an agar diffusion as well as through direct tests. All the results were statistically analyzed using one-way or two-way analysis of variance tests. Statistically significant lower void percentages were observed for CS at 2 and 8 mm from the working length (WL) compared to those for the BR group, whilst no significant difference was observed at 5 mm from the WL. BR sealer showed higher alkaline pH, rougher surface, lower water contact angle values, lower flowability, and higher solubility compared to CS. BR showed globular and needle-like crystalline microstructure, whilst CS had globular and flower-like crystalline microstructure up to 72 h. No statistical difference was found for the compressive strength between the two sealers. BR and CS showed no antibacterial effect against

Indexed as

antibacterial activitybioceramic sealercalcium-silicate-based materialsfilling abilityphysicochemical properties

Identifiers

PMID32992852
PMCPMC7600315
OpenAlexW3088669621

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.