ArticleBDJ open2024
The ability of different compositions of calcium silicate and epoxy sealers to withstand gutta percha removal via in vitro pull-out testing.
Article in BDJ open, 2024. 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.
- Effect of Formic Acid and Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation on the Removal of Residual Filling Material Containing AH-Plus Bioceramic Sealer.Iranian endodontic journal · 2026Article
- A laboratory study to assess the physico-chemical properties of BioRoot RCS and BioRoot Flow exposed to citric acid and EDTA irrigating solutions.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveexamination of the influence of chemical composition changes on the ability of sealers to withstand a pull-out test. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty distal or palatal canals of extracted teeth were prepared by Dc Taper files. The teeth were divided into five groups: AH Plus, BJM RCS, Total Fill BC,AH Plus Bioceramic and a group with Gutta Percha with no sealer added. Ten days after obturation, each cone was subjected to the "pull-out test" with the Shimadzo Universal Testing Machine until it was torn or removed from the canal. A force to Stroke graph was generated and the maximum vertex of this graph was recorded. The number of times the cone was torn or removed was recorded.
resultsThe amount of force needed to remove or rupture the cone was significantly higher in all sealer groups compared to the AH Plus Bioceramic group. The force needed for the AH Plus group was double that needed for the AH Plus Bioceramic group 4 (1.87 ± 0.53 N vs 0.93 ± 0.48 N, respectively, P < 0.001). All of the cones (n = 10) in the AH Plus Bio Ceramic Sealer group were removed in their entirety (P = 0.01 compared to each of the other groups).
conclusionsThe addition of macromolecules to epoxy sealer does not change the material's ability to withstand the pull-out test. Decreasing the amount of tri- and di-calcium silicate compounds combined with increasing amounts of zirconium oxide in a Bioceramic sealer significantly decreased the material's ability to withstand the pull-out test.
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.