ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2022
Evaluation of The Sealing Ability of Gutta Percha with Bioroot RCS, MTA Fillapex and Sealapex - An SEM Study.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Iron Oxide Nanoparticle Incorporation on the Cytocompatibility and Antimicrobial Behavior of a Calcium Silicate-Based Endodontic Sealer.Biomedicines · 2026Article
- Evaluation of tissue response of experimental calcium silicate-based endodontic sealers: An in vivo study.European journal of oral sciences · 2026Article
- Comparative Apical Sealing Performance of Bioceramic and Resin-Based Sealers: A Fluid Filtration Analysis.Iranian endodontic journal · 2026Article
- Impact of various endodontic sealers on HPDLF Cell viability and apoptosis.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the apical sealing of an eggshell hydroxyapatite-based sealer.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim of the Study: The objective of this Results: ZOE exhibited more gaps in the sealing materials evaluated with the least dental sealing performance, followed by the cervical third by the MTA Fillapex, the Sealapex, and the BioRoot RCS. The ZOE, followed by Sealapex, MTA Fillapex, and BioRoot RCS, exhibited inadequate dental wall sealing capacity in the middle of the third. The third apical ZOE exhibited more deficiencies in the formation of dental walls, followed by Sealapex, MTA Fillapex, and BioRoot RCS. Conclusion: Under the constraints of the investigation, it can be stated that for the bioceramic sealer, a minimal gap was seen, with RCS of BioRoot superior to Fillapex of MTA. In the middle third, Sealapex was better adapted to the calcium hydroxide-based sealant than the MTA Fillapex sealer. MTA Filllapex had lower gap development than Sealapex in cervical or apical thirds.
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.