ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry : JCD
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry : JCD. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative evaluation of antimicrobial and biofilm inhibition effects of royal jelly, chlorhexidine, and calcium hydroxide - AnJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Antimicrobial efficacy of calcium silicate-based bioceramic sealers againstJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2024Article
- About a Possible Impact of Endodontic Infections byInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Antibacterial activity of root canal sealers against established monospecies biofilm: AnJournal of conservative dentistry and endodonticsArticle
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Overview: Different types of bacterial species, Aim: The main objective of the study is to test the antibacterial efficacy of endodontic sealers against endo microflora belonging to Materials and Methods: The antibacterial effectiveness of five endodontic sealers (AH plus, Apexit, EndoRez, Endomethasone, and Tubliseal) was tested by means of the agar-diffusion test (ADT) and direct contact test (DCT). The bacterial suspension of individual microorganisms was applied separately onto the agar plates for ADT. Subsequently, freshly mixed and set sealer was applied on to the sterile discs. After 48 h of incubation, the inhibition zones were measured. For DCT, the sealers were put in 96-well cell culture plates and overlaid with bacterial suspension and brain heart infusion broth. The bacterial growth density of the liquid was tested by spectrophotometry at 0, 2, 4, 6, and 24 h. Results: The data were analyzed using ANOVA and Conclusion: In the ADT and DCT, Endomethasone showed the greatest antimicrobial effect against
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.