ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2024
Antimicrobial efficacy of calcium silicate-based bioceramic sealers against
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative efficacy of novel biomaterials versus traditional materials in the treatment of dental and pulpal diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- In Vitro Comparison of Void Formation Between Calcium Silicate-Based Sealers and AH Plus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Fracture resistance of maxillary central incisor with external cervical resorption restored with biomimetic bilayered restoration technique: AnJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of cytotoxicity and antimicrobial efficacy of a poloxamer 407-based pulp capping agent and mineral trioxide aggregate: AnJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Sequence-based structural/motif and stereochemical analysis of enterococcal surface protein in endodontic.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Evaluation of efficacy of SmartLite Pro EndoActivator sonic activation using adenosine triphosphate bioluminescence meter: A randomized clinical trial.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025Article
- Assessing the antibacterial potency of royal jelly: Minimum inhibitory concentration and minimum bactericidal concentration evaluation againstJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025Article
- Effect of bioceramic sealers in enhancing root canal healing.Bioinformation · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: The main objective of endodontic therapy is to achieve a sterile environment and three-dimensional filling of the root canals. Endodontic sealers play an important role in the obturation of the root canal system as they may provide a seal, which prevents the penetration of bacteria. Sealers are meant to entomb residual bacteria, prevent leakage of nutrients, and ideally possess antibacterial properties. Aim: The aim of the study was to evaluate and compare the antimicrobial effectiveness of calcium silicate-based bioceramic root canal sealers against Materials and Methods: The materials were divided into four groups of nine samples each for both Statistical Analysis Used: The data were analyzed using the ANOVA and Results: Calcium silicate-based root canal sealers showed significantly better efficacy than the control group. BioRoot RCS (3.44 ± 1.13 mm) showed maximum antibacterial effect against Conclusions: The study's findings lead to the conclusion that BioRoot RCS showed a maximum antibacterial effect against
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.