ArticleScientific reports2022
An in vitro evaluation of antimicrobial activity of a fast-setting endodontic material.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Antibacterial activity of biodentine againstFrontiers in dental medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy of Laser Pulpotomy vs. Conventional Vital Pulpotomy in Primary Teeth: A Comparative Clinical Analysis.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Biodentine™ as a temporary filling in deep carious lesions in permanent teeth: a prospective observational 33-month follow-up study.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2024Observational
- Clinical application of calcium silicate-based bioceramics in endodontics.Journal of translational medicine · 2023Review
- Article
- Article
- Comparative Evaluation of the Antimicrobial Activity of NeoPutty MTA and Modified NeoPutty MTA: AnJournal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
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
The aim of this study is to evaluate the antimicrobial activity of the fast-setting iRoot Fast Set Root Repair Material (iRoot FS), Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and Biodentine. The materials were freshly mixed or set for 1 and 7 days to conduct the agar diffusion test, direct contact test and carry-over effect test against E. faecalis and P. gingivalis, and the pH values were also measured. The data were analyzed by an analysis of variance and one-way ANOVA or Dunnett's T3 test, and the Tukey's post hoc test for multiple comparisons (α = 0.05). In the direct contact test, all three materials showed good antibacterial activity after setting for 20 min. The antibacterial properties of the three materials decreased with the increase of setting time (p < 0.05). The suspension of all the three materials showed high pH values (11-12) and no significant difference was observed (p > 0.05). With the extension of setting time, the pH of iRoot FS and Biodentine slightly decreased (p < 0.05). Fresh iRoot FS, Biodentine, and MTA killed E. faecalis and P. gingivalis effectively, but their antimicrobial effect decreased after 24 h, and distinctly decreased after 7 days after mixing. iRoot FS, Biodentine, and MTA showed a tendency of alkalinity during this 7-day experiment.
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.