ArticleBMC oral health2024
Bacterial sealing ability of calcium silicate-based sealer for endodontic surgery: an in-vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundApical surgery with standard retrograde maneuvers may be challenging in certain cases. Simplifying apical surgery to reduce operating time and streamline retrograde manipulation is an emerging need in clinical endodontics. AIM OF THE STUDY: The aim of the study was to compare the bacterial sealing ability of a calcium silicate-based sealer with the single cone technique combined with root end resection only, and calcium silicate-based sealer as a retrograde filling versus MTA retrofilling, and to analyze bacterial viability using confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM). MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this in vitro experimental study, 50 extracted human maxillary incisor teeth were instrumented and randomly divided into five groups: three experimental groups, a positive control group, and a negative control group (n = 10/group). In the experimental groups, the roots were obturated using the single cone technique (SCT) and a calcium silicate-based sealer. In group 1, the roots were resected 3 mm from the apex with no further retrograde preparation or filling. In groups 2 and 3, the roots were resected, retroprepared, and retrofilled with either a calcium silicate-based sealer or MTA, respectively. Group 4 (positive control) was filled with a single gutta-percha cone without any sealer. In group 5 (negative control), the canals were left empty, and the roots were sealed with wax and nail varnish. A bacterial leakage model using Enterococcus faecalis was employed to assess the sealing ability over a 30-day period, checking for turbidity and analyzing colony forming units (CFUs) per milliliter. Five specimens from each group were examined using CLSM for bacterial viability. Data for the bacterial sealing ability were statistically analyzed using chi-squared and Kruskal-Wallis tests.
resultsThe three experimental groups did not show significant differences in terms of bacterial leakage, or bacterial counts (CFUs) (P > 0.05). However, significant differences were observed when comparing the experimental groups to the positive control group. Notably, the calcium silicate-based sealer, when used as a retrofilling, yielded the best sealing ability. CLSM imaging revealed viable bacterial penetration in all the positive control group specimens while for the experimental groups, dead bacteria was the prominent feature seen.
conclusionWithin the limitations of this study, it could be concluded that the bacterial sealing ability of calcium silicate-based sealer with the single cone technique combined with root end resection only and calcium silicate-based sealer as a retrograde filling were comparable with MTA retrofilling during endodontic surgical procedures.
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.