ArticleClinical oral investigations2022
A comprehensive in vitro comparison of the biological and physicochemical properties of bioactive root canal sealers.
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 16 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
16 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical outcomes of nonsurgical root canal treatment using C-root SP combined with different obturation techniques in older patients: a randomized controlled clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Evaluation of the physicochemical properties and adhesive interface quality of BioRoot Flow and BioRoot RCS endodontic sealers: An in vitro study.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Assessment of physicochemical and cytotoxic characteristics of resin-based and bioceramic root canal sealers: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Setting Characteristics, Solubility, Bioactivity and Interaction with Dentin of Four Calcium Silicate-Based Endodontic Sealers.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Cytotoxicity of Root Canal Sealers and Potential Clinical Implications: A Comprehensive Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Article
- In Vitro Microscopical and Microbiological Assessment of the Sealing Ability of Calcium Silicate-Based Root Canal Sealers.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Article
- An In Vitro Comparative Analysis of Physico-Mechanical Properties of Commercial and Experimental Bioactive Endodontic Sealers.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Premixed calcium silicate-based root canal sealers have better biological properties than AH Plus: A systematic review and meta-analysis of in vivo animal studies andJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2024Review
- Comparative bioactivity and immunomodulatory potential of the new Bioroot Flow and AH Plus Bioceramic sealer: An in vitro study on hPDLSCs.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- Filling ability of ready-to-use or powder-liquid calcium silicate-based sealers after ultrasonic agitation.Brazilian dental journal · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Solubility, and Volumetric and Morphological Alterations of Bioceramic Filling Material for Primary Teeth: A New Methodological Approach.International journal of dentistry · 2024Article
- Thermal, chemical and physical analysis of VDW.1Seal, Fill Root ST, and ADseal root canal sealers.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Microleakage of Restorative Materials Used for Temporization of Endodontic Access Cavities.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Article
- Cytotoxicity and Mineralization Activity of Calcium Silicate-Based Root Canal Sealers Compared to Conventional Resin-Based Sealer in Human Gingival Fibroblast Cells.International journal of dentistry · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the biological and physicochemical features of bioactive root canal sealers. MATERIALS AND
methodsHuman periodontal ligament fibroblasts (hPDLF) and human osteoblasts (hOB) were exposed to eluates of three bioactive root canal sealers, GuttaFlow® bioseal (GF), BioRoot™ RCS (BR), and TotalFill® BC Sealer (TF), and the epoxy resin-based sealer AH plus® (AH). Cytotoxicity and cellular inflammatory response were evaluated. The osteogenic potential was examined using human mesenchymal stem cells (hMSC). Film thickness, flowability, and pH were assessed. Root canal treatment was performed on human extracted teeth to evaluate the sealers' tightness towards bacterial penetration. The antibacterial activity against common pathogens in primary root canal infections was tested.
resultsAH was severely cytotoxic to hPDLF and hOB (p < 0.001). The bioactive sealers were generally less cytotoxic. IL-6 levels in hPDLF were elevated in the presence of AH (p < 0.05). AH and GF suppressed IL-6 production in hOB (p < 0.05). AH and BR stimulated the PGE
conclusionsThis study revealed favorable in vitro results regarding the biocompatibility of the bioactive root canal sealers. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Bioactive root canal sealers may be a useful alternative to epoxy resin-based sealers.
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.