ArticleBrazilian dental journal
Tissue repair capacity of bioceramic endodontic sealers in rat subcutaneous tissue.
Article in Brazilian dental journal. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Cytotoxicity, Biocompatibility, and Calcium Deposition Capacity of 45S5 Bioglass Experimental Paste and Bio-C Temp: In Vitro and In Vivo Study Using Wistar Rats.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Article
- Article
- Evaluation of Cytotoxicity, Cell Attachment, and Elemental Characterization of Three Calcium Silicate-Based Sealers.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
This study aimed to evaluate the tissue repair capacity of four bioceramic endodontic sealers by quantifying type I and III collagen fibers. The following sealers were tested: EndoSequence BC Sealer (Brasseler, Brasseler, Savannah, USA), Bio C Sealer (Angelus, Londrina, Brazil), Bioroot RCS (Septodont, Santa Catarina, Brazil), and Sealer Plus BC (MKLife, Porto Alegre, Brazil). Polyethylene tubes 1.5 mm in diameter and 1 cm in length containing the endodontic sealers were implanted in the subcutaneous tissue of five rats (Rattus norvegicus albinus, Wistar lineage). After 14 days, the animals were euthanized, and collagen fibers were quantified from the histological tissue sections. Given a non-normal distribution of the data, a gamma regression with log link function was employed and implemented through the generalized linear models module, was used to test whether there was a significant difference between the sealers. The pairwise comparison was performed using Least significant difference. There were significant differences between the sealers for type I (p=0.001), type III (p=0.023), and total collagen (p=0.002). Overall, Bioroot sealer was statistically superior to the other sealers, except in the analysis of type III collagen, in which there was no difference between the Bioroot sealer and Bio C Sealer sealer and the control group (p>0.05). Bioroot RCS bioceramic endodontic sealer stimulates a greater production of collagen.
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.