ArticleClinical oral investigations2022
In vitro evaluation of the antibacterial effect of four root canal sealers on dental biofilms.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effect of acidity on the physicochemical properties of two hydraulic calcium silicate-based cements and two calcium phosphate silicate-based cements.BMC oral health · 2023Trial
- Effect of Iron Oxide Nanoparticle Incorporation on the Cytocompatibility and Antimicrobial Behavior of a Calcium Silicate-Based Endodontic Sealer.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Physicochemical and biological properties of three calcium silicate-based root canal sealers.PloS one · 2026Article
- Randomised Clinical Trial: Effect of AH Plus and Neosealer Flo on Postoperative Pain and Healing of Periapical Lesions.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Effect of bioceramic sealers in enhancing root canal healing.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Sodium hypochlorite against Enterococcus faecalis biofilm in dentinal tubules: effect of concentration, temperature, and exposure time.Odontology · 2024Article
- Article
- Article
- Evaluation of extracellular polymeric substances matrix volume, surface roughness and bacterial adhesion property of oral biofilm.Journal of dental sciences · 2023Article
- A critical review of the material properties guiding the clinician's choice of root canal sealers.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Review
- Antibiofilm peptides enhance the corrosion resistance of titanium in the presence ofFrontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo dynamically evaluate the effect of four root canal sealers on the killing of biofilms within dentinal tubules. MATERIALS AND
methodsDentin blocks were prepared for infection of the dentinal tubules. Enterococcus faecalis VP3-181 and multi-species bacteria from two donors were cultured. After 3 days of incubation, the infected dentin specimens were rinsed with sterile water for 1 min and subjected to treatment. Additionally, multi-species bacteria from donor 1 were incubated for 3 weeks to allow biofilm maturation and then the specimens were subjected to treatment. Gutta-percha-treated dentin specimens comprised the control group. A root canal sealer (bioceramic sealers: EndoSequence BC Sealer, ProRoot Endo Sealer, or GuttaFlow Bioseal; and a traditional silicone-based sealer: Guttaflow 2) was spread onto the canal walls of the dentin. The specimens were examined with confocal laser scanning microscopy at 7, 30, or 60 days.
resultsIn the 3-day-old biofilm group, the proportion of killed bacteria decreased significantly from the first 7 days of treatment to 60 days of treatment for all sealers (p < 0.05). In the 3-week-old biofilm group, 60 days of exposure to bioceramic sealers resulted in more significant dead bacteria than 7-day exposures of the biofilms (p < 0.05). Bioceramic sealers were more effective in killing bacteria than the GuttaFlow 2 sealer (p < 0.05).
conclusionsCalcium silicate-based sealers showed good antimicrobial effects against biofilms within dentinal tubules, especially in the first week in young biofilms. There is no substantive antibacterial activity observed for the examined root canal sealers against young dentinal tubule biofilms. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The bioceramic root canal sealers examined demonstrate minimal additional antibacterial effects after long-term exposure to young biofilms.
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.