ArticlePeerJ2024
Assessment of sealing efficacy, radiopacity, and surface topography of a bioinspired polymer for perforation repair.
Article in PeerJ, 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.
- Comprehensive evaluation of antibacterial activity, pH stability, and surface characterization of a mussel-inspired polymer for root perforation repair.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Exploring the biological activity and setting dynamics of a novel polydopamine-based root repair material.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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Root perforation repair presents a significant challenge in dentistry due to inherent limitations of existing materials. This study explored the potential of a novel polydopamine-based composite as a root repair material by evaluating its sealing efficacy, radiopacity, and surface topography. Methods: Confocal microscopy assessed sealing ability, comparing the polydopamine-based composite to the gold standard, mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA). Radiopacity was evaluated using the aluminium step wedge technique conforming to ISO standards. Surface roughness analysis utilized atomic force microscopy (AFM), while field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM) visualized morphology. Results: The polydopamine-based composite exhibited significantly superior sealing efficacy compared to MTA ( Conclusion: This study demonstrates promising properties of the polydopamine-based composite for root perforation repair, including superior sealing efficacy, clinically relevant radiopacity, and smooth surface topography. Further investigation is warranted to assess its clinical viability and potential translation to endodontic practice.
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.