ArticleScientific reports2024
The osteoinductive potential of different root-end filling materials in a rat femur model
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
In pediatric dentistry, the enduring success of root-end filling materials employed for the establishment of apical plugs in immature teeth undergoing endodontic intervention is contingent upon their possessing a robust osteoinductive capacity. Hence, the primary objective of this study was to histologically assess the osteoinductive potential of four distinct dental materials, specifically recommended for retrograde filling applications, utilizing an animal hard tissue model. Within the designed experimental model, two bone defects measuring 2 mm in diameter and 2 mm in depth were created in both femurs of a cohort comprising 21 male Wistar albino rats. The first defect in the right femur was left blank as the control group, and Neo MTA Plus was placed in the second defect. The EndoSequence BCRRM Fast Set Putty was placed in the first of the defects on the left femur, and Endo Repair was placed in the second defect. Subjects were sacrificed after 7, 14, and 28 days of follow-up, and sections were examined to assess the degree of inflammation, connective tissue formation, and new bone formation. The data were statistically evaluated with Kruskal‒Wallis and post hoc Dunn's tests using SPSS 12 software. The bone healing levels of the Neo MTA Plus group were significantly higher than those of the other groups in all periods (p < 0.05). Bone organization in all groups decreased over time, and fibrous tissue was enriched. The results of this study demonstrate that NeoMta Plus has superior osteoinductive properties compared to other materials but that EndoSequence and Endo Repair have the potential to be developed.
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.