ArticleJournal of dental sciences2022
Physicochemical and biological properties of four calcium silicate-based endodontic cements.
Article in Journal of dental 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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cytotoxicity and Bioactivity of Five Hydraulic Silicate Cements in Human Dental Pulp Cells at Different Setting Stages.International dental journal · 2026Article
- In Vitro Bioactivity and Cytotoxicity Assessment of Two Root Canal Sealers.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Impact of different capping materials extracts on proliferation and osteogenic differentiation of cultured human dental pulp stem cells.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Antimicrobial Properties, Cell Viability, and Metalloproteinase Activity of Bioceramic Endodontic Materials Used in Vital Pulp Therapy.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Article
- Biological properties of Ceraputty as a retrograde filling material: an in vitro study on hPDLSCs.Clinical oral investigations · 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 at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/purpose: Several brands of calcium silicate-based cements (CSBCs) are currently marketed. Here we compared physicochemical and biological properties of new products Ortho MTA (BioMTA), Retro MTA (BioMTA), and EZ-Seal (Ezekiel) to widely used ProRoot MTA (Dentsply Tulsa). Materials and methods: CSBCs were analyzed by X-ray diffractometry and examined by scanning electron microscopy. Elemental composition was determined by energy dispersive spectroscopy. Particle size was measured by particle size analyzer. Human stem cells from apical papilla (SCAPs) were incubated with eluates from CSBCs. Survival of SCAP cells was evaluated with MTT assay. The Alizarin red S stain was used to identify calcified nodules formed in SCAP cultures. The effects of CSBC eluates on SCAP proliferation and migration were examined using an Results: All CSBC specimens showed similar X-ray diffraction patterns. The average particle size of EZ-Seal was smaller than ProRoot MTA, Ortho MTA, and Retro MTA ( Conclusion: EZ-Seal has a smaller average particle size and a better cytocompatibility than all other examined CSBCs.
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.