ArticleRestorative dentistry & endodontics2021
Micro-computed tomographic evaluation of single-cone obturation with three sealers.
Article in Restorative dentistry & endodontics, 2021. 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, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ex-vivo evaluation of clinically-set hydraulic sealers used with different canal dryness protocols and obturation techniques: a randomized clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Trial
- Comparative evaluation of bioactive calcium silicate coating on functionalized gutta-percha and its effect on bioceramic sealer wettability - AnJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025Article
- Assessment of gap areas of root filling techniques in teeth with 3D-printed different configurations of C-shaped root canals: a micro-computed tomography study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Retrieval of AH Plus, MTA Fillapex, and Endoseal MTA in Endodontic Retreatment: An in Vitro Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Study.Frontiers in dentistry · 2025Article
- Hydraulic (Single Cone) Versus Thermogenic (Warm Vertical Compaction) Obturation Techniques: A Systematic Review.Cureus · 2024Review
- Assessment of isthmus filling using two obturation techniques performed by students with different levels of clinical experience.Journal of dental sciences · 2024Article
- Enhancing Coronal Adaptation of Root Canal Fillings with a Modified Single-Cone Obturation Technique: Two Case Reports.Iranian endodontic journal · 2024Article
- Efficacy of Reciprocating Instruments in Retreatment of Bioactive and Resin-Based Root Canal Sealers.Acta stomatologica Croatica · 2022Article
- Calcium-doped zinc oxide nanocrystals as an innovative intracanal medicament: a pilot study.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study used micro-computed tomography (µCT) to compare voids and interfaces in single-cone obturation among AH Plus, EndoSequence BC, and prototype surface pre-reacted glass ionomer (S-PRG) sealers and to determine the percentage of sealer contact at the dentin and gutta-percha (GP) interfaces. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifteen single-rooted human teeth were shaped using ProTaper NEXT size X5 rotary files using 2.5% NaOCl irrigation. Roots were obturated with a single-cone ProTaper NEXT GP point X5 with AH Plus, EndoSequence BC, or prototype S-PRG sealer (
resultsThe volumes of GP, sealer, and voids were measured in the region of 0-2, 2-4, 4-6, and 6-8 mm from the apex, using image analysis of sagittal µCT scans. GP volume percentages were: AH Plus (75.5%), EndoSequence BC (87.3%), and prototype S-PRG (94.4%). Sealer volume percentages were less: AH Plus (14.3%), EndoSequence BC (6.8%), and prototype S-PRG (4.6%). Void percentages were AH Plus (10.1%), EndoSequence BC (5.9%), and prototype S-PRG (1.0%). Dentin-sealer contact ratios of AH Plus, EndoSequence BC, and prototype S-PRG groups were 82.4% ± 6.8%, 71.6% ± 25.3%, and 70.2% ± 9.4%, respectively. GP-sealer contact ratios of AH Plus, EndoSequence BC, and prototype S-PRG groups were 65.6% ± 29.1%, 80.7% ± 25.8%, and 87.0% ± 8.6%, respectively.
conclusionsPrototype S-PRG sealer created a low-void obturation, similar to EndoSequence BC sealer with similar dentin-sealer contact (> 70%) and GP-sealer contact (> 80%). Prototype S-PRG sealer presented comparable filling quality to EndoSequence BC sealer.
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.