ArticleCureus2024
Comparison of Different Obturation Techniques in the Dentinal Tubule Penetration of EndoSequence® Bioceramic Sealer HiFlow™: 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 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.
- Functional and Bioactive Performance of Premixed Bioceramic Sealers with Warm Obturation: A Scoping Review.Gels (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
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
Background This study aimed to assess the dentinal tubule penetration of bioceramic sealer (DTPB) using EndoSequence® Bioceramic Sealer HiFlow™ (BCHF). Three obturation techniques were compared, namely, single cone (SC), cold lateral condensation (CLC), and warm vertical compaction (WVC) using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Methodology A total of 45 intact mandibular premolars were decoronated, instrumented, and irrigated with uniform procedures. Subsequently, they were randomly assigned into the following three groups according to the gutta-percha and BCHF obturation technique: Group 1 (n = 15) with the SC technique, Group 2 (n = 15) with the CLC technique, and Group 3 (n = 15) with the WVC technique. Afterward, the roots were sectioned at three levels (coronal, middle, apical) from the apex and examined using SEM to determine the maximum distance of DTPB in µm. The collected data were analyzed using SPSS software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA) using the one-way analysis of variance test and Bonferroni tests. The level of significance was set at α of 0.05. Results Significant differences were observed in the maximum distances of DTPB values among the three levels across groups (p < 0.05). Both the WVC and CLC groups exhibited higher values compared to the SC group (p < 0.05). Specifically, the DTPB maximum distance at the apical third was significantly higher in the CLC group than in the WVC and SC groups (p < 0.05). Additionally, the coronal third in each group demonstrated significant DTPB maximum distance (p < 0.05) compared to the other groups. Conclusions BCHF with the WVC and CLC obturation technique showed the best performance in DTPB maximum distance values at the three levels.
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.