ArticleBrazilian dental journal2024
In vivo method to evaluate volumetric changes in bioceramic repair materials.
Article in Brazilian dental journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Physicochemical properties and periodontal ligament stem cell response to NeoMTA 2.Clinical oral investigations · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the effect of in vitro immersion solutions or an in vivo method on volumetric change of bioceramic root repair materials: Bio-C Repair (BCR, Angelus, Londrina, PR, Brazil) and Biodentine (BIO, Septodont, Saint-Maur-des-Fossés, France) compared to IRM (Dentsply Sirona, York, Pennsylvania, USA) by using microcomputed tomography (µCT) assessment. Tubes of polyvinyl chloride (PVC, 4 mm of length x 1.3 mm of inside diameter, n = 7) were filled with the materials for volumetric analysis in µCT. Samples were scanned after materials setting and after immersion in distilled water, PBS, or in vivo tissue fluid of subcutaneous tissue of rats for 7 days. IRM showed higher volumetric change than BCR and BIO in all immersion solutions (P<0.05). BIO and BCR presented similar volumetric changes when immersed in PBS and distilled water (P>0.05). When the in vivo method was used, BIO and BCR showed lower volumetric change (P<0.05), including an increase in volume for BCR. The immersion solutions influenced the evaluation of the volumetric change of bioceramic repair materials. Bioceramic materials show greater volumetric stability when evaluated by the in vivo method. The in vivo method in the subcutaneous tissue of rats can be an alternative for analyzing the properties of bioceramic cement, showing similarity with the clinical application.
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.