ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Physicochemical Changes in Root-Canal Sealers under Thermal Challenge: A Comparative Analysis of Calcium Silicate- and Epoxy-Resin-Based Sealers.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 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
- Physico-chemical analysis of eight pre-mixed hydraulic silicate sealers.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Effect of moisture and pH on setting time and microhardness of three premixed calcium silicate-based root canal sealers: an in vitro experimental study.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2025Article
- Physicochemical properties of a novel experimental alginic acid-enhanced bioceramic-based root canal sealer: A comparativeJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025Article
- Microstructural and Elemental Characterization of Calcium Silicate-Based Sealers.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Influence of ultrasonic agitation on pH and antibiofilm activity of endodontic sealers - AnJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Article
- Guided endodontics, precision and predictability: a case series of mineralized anterior teeth with follow-up cone-beam computed tomography.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2025Article
- Retreatability of calcium silicate-based sealers based on micro-computed tomographic evaluation - A systematic review.The Saudi dental journal · 2024Review
- Reinforcement potential of Bioceramic vs. Resin sealers against vertical root fracture risk in the presence of the Butterfly Effect.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionWe compared the effects of heat on the physicochemical properties of recently developed calcium silicate-based sealers (CSBSs), including BioRoot Flow, BioRoot RCS, and AH Plus Bioceramic sealer, with those of the epoxy-resin-based sealer (ERBS) AH Plus.
methodsThe flow, film thickness, setting time, and solubility of sealers were evaluated at 37 °C and 100 °C using ISO 6876/2012. Furthermore, pH and calcium ion release were evaluated at these temperatures. In addition, the mass change in sealers at a high temperature was assessed via thermogravimetric analysis. Then, the chemical composition and components of the sealers were analyzed using a scanning electron microscope and Fourier-transform infrared spectroscopy (FTIR).
resultsBioRoot Flow, AH Plus Bioceramic, and AH Plus complied with ISO standards in terms of flow and film thickness, both before and after heat application. However, BioRoot RCS exhibited significantly increased film thickness at 100 °C. The setting times of all sealers were significantly reduced at 100 °C. The solubility of CSBS was >3%, exceeding the ISO 6876/2012 standard, both before and after heat exposure. Conversely, the solubility of AH Plus complied with the standard, regardless of the thermal condition. For 4 weeks, CSBS showed a significantly higher pH than AH Plus at both 37 °C and 100 °C. After heat treatment, calcium release decreased in Bioroot RCS and BioRoot Flow, while AH Plus showed no significant differences before and after treatment. However, CSBS consistently exhibited significantly higher calcium release than AH Plus at both temperatures. An FTIR analysis revealed that the chemical composition of the sealers did not change at the high temperature, whereas a thermogravimetric analysis demonstrated a >5% weight reduction in CSBS and a 0.005% weight reduction in AH Plus at 100 °C.
conclusionsBioRoot Flow, AH Plus Bioceramic, and AH Plus possess favorable physicochemical properties, which make them suitable for application under thermal conditions. At a high temperature, BioRoot RCS did not exhibit changes in its chemical composition. However, its film thickness was increased, and pH and solubility were reduced. Therefore, caution is needed when it is applied at high temperatures, such as during the warm obturation technique.
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.