ArticleBMC oral health2024
In vitro comparison of Enterococcus Faecalis survival in dentinal tubules following root canal therapy with AH plus, endoseal MTA, and cold ceramic sealers.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Electrically Charged Lipid Nanoparticles as Intracanal Antimicrobial Delivery Systems: A Narrative Review of Preclinical Evidence for Biofilm Control.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Selenium nanoparticles as a biological safe endodontic irrigant improving root canal sealing.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Membrane Vesicles ofMicroorganisms · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundEnterococcus faecalis (E. faecalis) is the most common microorganism responsible for post-endodontic infections, which can penetrate deep into dentinal tubules. This study aimed to compare the survival of E. faecalis in dentinal tubules following root canal therapy with AH Plus (AHP), Endoseal MTA (ESM), and cold ceramic (CC) sealers.
methodsIn this in vitro experimental study, 80 single-canal human teeth were decoronated at the cementoenamel junction. The root canals were cleaned and shaped, and auto-clave sterilized after smear layer removal. The roots were then inoculated with E. faecalis, and incubated for 3 weeks. The teeth were randomly assigned to four groups (n = 20) for root canal obturation with AHP, ESM, and CC sealers and 2% gutta-percha with the cold lateral compaction technique. The fourth group served as the control group. After 30 days, dentin chips were collected from the canals, and cultured on blood agar. The colony count was reported and analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test (alpha = 0.05).
resultsThe mean colony count was 23.73 ± 13.84 in the AHP, 34.78 ± 18.75 in the ESM, and 28.47 ± 13.73 in the CC group after 30 days. The difference in this regard was not significant among the three experimental groups (P = 0.102).
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this in vitro study, the results indicated comparable antibacterial activity of AHP, ESM, and CC sealers against E. faecalis in infected dentinal tubules after 30 days.
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.