ArticleThe Saudi dental journal2023
Remineralization ability of different root canal sealers.
Article in The Saudi dental journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Randomised Clinical Trial: Effect of AH Plus and Neosealer Flo on Postoperative Pain and Healing of Periapical Lesions.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims: This research was designed to contrast the biocompatibility and remineralization ability of different sealers (BioRoot, MTA-FillApex and GuttaFlow-Bioseal). Method: Twenty rabbits were used in this study, they were randomly divided into 4 groups equally depending on the observation time"3,7,14, and 28 days" post-implantation. Each rabbit was generally anesthetized,"7cm"long incision was made on the skin of the right and left sides of the ventral aspect of the mandible of each rabbit, 4 bony cavities of approximately"5mm"in depth and"2mm"in diameter (2 cavities on the left side and 2 cavities on the right side of mandible of each rabbit) were made in the cortical surface of the buccal alveolar bone. The sealers mixed depend on manufactural instructions and immediately insert into the prepared cavities (in the right side the BioRoot and MTA-FillApex were placed while on the left side, GuttaFlow-Bioseal was placed in one cavity and the other cavity was left unfilled as control).The same volume of each sealer was placed in the corresponding cavity using disposable syringes. After each observation period, the animals were sacrificed and bone biopsy from the tested area was taken and examined histologically using Olympus light microscopy at"400X"magnification. Results: The obtained data were analyzed through non-parametric statistical tests using SPSS software version"22".Kruskal-Wallis test and Mann - Whitney test were utilized at"0.05"levels of significance to evaluate the results. GuttaFlow-Bioseal displayed excellent biocompatibility in comparison to other groups indicated by low inflammatory tissue reaction at all evaluation intervals. While the BioRoot group represented better osteo-conductivity although statistically not significant than GuttaFlow-Bioseal group. Conclusion: BioRoot and GuttaFlow-Bioseal showed higher osteo-conductivity and biocompatibility than MTA-FillApex. However, all sealer used in this study were well tolerated by bone tissue and might accelerate bone repair.
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.