ArticleCureus2024
Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscope Analysis of the Marginal Adaptation of Various Root Canal Sealers at the Dentin-Sealer and Sealer-Guttapercha Interfaces at Three Root Canal Levels: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of Local Anesthesia Techniques on the Microstructural Integrity of Dental Injection Needles: A Field Emission Scanning Electron Microscopy Analysis.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation sealing ability: Bioceramic versus resin-based sealers by micro-CT analysis.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Quality of Single-Cone Obturation Using Different Sizes of Matching Gutta-Percha Points of Two Reciprocating Single-File Systems in Curved and Straight Root Canals.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aims An in vitro evaluation of the marginal adaptation of four root canal sealer variants at the dentin-sealer and sealer gutta-percha interfaces in the coronal, middle, and apical thirds of root canals was conducted using field emission scanning electron microscope (FESEM) analysis. Materials and methods In total, 80 extracted human mandibular premolar teeth were used in this study. All teeth were decoronated to standardize the root length to 14 mm. A round bur was used to gain access into canal orifices and the working length was determined. Root canal instrumentation was performed using the crown-down technique with ProTaper Next rotary files up to size X3, along with the use of root canal irrigants. All specimens were then randomly divided into four groups, with 20 specimens per group, depending on the root canal sealer used: Group A consisted of AH Plus (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), Group B of MTA-Fillapex (Angelus Dental, Londrina, Brazil), Group C of Bio-C Sealer (Angelus Dental), and Group D of GuttaFlow-2 (Coltene Whaledent, Altstatten, Switzerland). All specimens were obturated with size X3 gutta-percha points uniformly coated with respective sealers in the single-cone technique and coronal access was sealed with glass ionomer cement. The specimens were incubated for seven days and then horizontally sectioned at the coronal, middle, and apical thirds of the root canals. On each sample obtained, three points were randomly chosen and both sealer-dentin and sealer gutta-percha interfaces were examined under FESEM at 1000x magnification. The marginal gaps of all four sealers at both interfaces and at three levels of root canals were measured in µm and values were recorded, tabulated, and used for data analysis. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Bonferroni tests were used for statistical analysis. A p-value ≤ 0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results Compared to the sealer gutta-percha interface, AH Plus, MTA-Fillapex, and Bio-C sealers at all three levels of the root canals showed more marginal gaps at the sealer-dentin interface with a significant difference (p<0.05). However, the GuttaFlow-2 sealer showed no significant difference (P > 0.05). Conclusions The marginal adaptation of the GuttaFlow-2 sealer is superior to both dentin and gutta-percha at the coronal, middle, and apical thirds of root canals compared to other sealers used in the study.
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.