ArticleCureus2024
Comparative Analysis of Antibacterial Efficacy and Flow Characteristics of Three Root Canal Sealers.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOral microflora containing microorganisms is responsible for the majority of orodental diseases as well as post-endodontic treatment failure. Even in the ideal root canal treatment cases, a small number of viable bacteria will remain in the dentinal tubule hence come the role of root canal sealers, which must offer and possess some degree of antimicrobial activity alongside adequate flowability to ensure excellent sealing of all lateral dentinal tubule canals to prevent the possibility of future reinfection. The present study aimed to examine the antibacterial efficacy against MATERIALS AND
methodsThe antibacterial activity and flow characteristics of three root canal sealers, Endofill, AH Plus, and GuttaFlow2, were tested using ADT at three different time intervals (24 hours, 48 hours, and seven days). For this purpose,
resultsThe results for antibacterial activity showed a statistically significant difference between Endofill and the other groups (p < 0.05). The antibacterial activity of Endofill increased over time from 24 hours to 48 hours and seven days. AH Plus demonstrated antibacterial activity only within the first 24 hours of mixing, while GuttaFlow2 showed no inhibition zones against
conclusionEndofill demonstrated the highest antibacterial activity at all time intervals, while GuttaFlow2 showed no antimicrobial activity. AH Plus exhibited antimicrobial effects only within the first 24 hours of mixing. In terms of flow values, Endofill had the lowest flow, whereas GuttaFlow2 and AH Plus had the highest flow values.
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.