ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
Comparison of biocompatibility of epoxy resin and bioceramic-based root canal sealers.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing Sealing Ability of C-Root SP Strontium Silicate Sealer With Different Obturation Techniques: An in vitro Study.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Curative potential of resveratrol and pterostilbene against epoxy resin-induced reproductive toxicity in female rats.Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's archives of pharmacology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe purpose of this study is to compare the cytotoxicity of 2 bioceramic-based (Bioserra and AH Plus Bioceramic (Bio)) and 2 epoxy resin-based (Sealart and AH Plus) root canal sealers on the Saos-2 cell line.
methodsThe cytotoxicity of the root canal sealers was determined using the MTT metabolic activity assay. The mRNA expression levels of Bcl-2, Beclin1, Cas-3, IL-6, LC3, MMP-9 and TNF-α genes were assessed by quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR) and the expression of Beclin1 and LC3 proteins were assessed using western blot (WB) method. The canal sealers' total antioxidant status (TAS), total oxidant status (TOS), and oxidative stress index (OSI) were measured using photometric kits.
resultsAH Plus Bio significantly increased metabolic activity compared to the 2 resin-containing sealers, but there was no difference with Bioserra. Sealart was clearly the most cytotoxic group. QRT-PCR analysis revealed that the mRNA expressions of Bcl-2, Beclin1, Cas-3, IL-6, LC3, and MMP-9 in the Bioserra group, Bcl-2, Cas-3, and IL-6 in the Sealart group, Beclin1, Cas-3, IL-6, and MMP-9 in the AH Plus group, and Bcl2 in the AH Plus Bio group were stimulated. The OSI results showed no significant difference between the root canal sealer groups.
conclusionsIn the study, the best biocompatibility results in MTT, qRT-PCR, WB and OSI were in the AH Plus Bio group. Although Bioserra, the study's other bioceramic paste, was found to be biocompatible according to MTT and OSI measurements, it increased the expression of all genes in qRT-PCR except for TNF-α, and also increased LC3 protein levels in WB. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Since periradicular tissues can be directly affected by the materials used in root canal treatment, the sealers with high biocompatibility are being developed. In vitro studies examining the biocompatibility of newly produced root canal sealers are guiding for clinical success.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39617835What 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.