ArticleBMC oral health2024
Dentinal tubular penetration ability of epoxy resin-based and bioceramic-based root canal 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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influence of intracanal moisture on dentinal tubule infiltration of a calcium silicate-containing resin-based sealer assessed with confocal laser scanning microscopy.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- The effect of nano chitosan and calcium hydroxide intracanal medications on sealer penetration & bond strength in radicular dentin.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Article
- Dentinal tubule penetration of AH Plus, MTA Fillapex, and BioRoot flow: a confocal laser scanning microscopy study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Removal efficacy of two different root canal sealers in retrograde cavities: a micro-CT study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Does radiotherapy compromise root canal sealer penetration? An in vitro confocal laser microscopy study.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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this study was to compare AH Plus Bioceramic Sealer (AHPB), AH Plus (AHP), MTA Fillapex (MTAF), and Sure-Seal (SS) sealers for dentinal tubular penetration ability.
methodsForty extracted human mandibular premolars were instrumented and divided into 4 groups based on the sealer used for filling (n = 10): AHPB, AHP, MTAF, SS. After filling the root canals, the roots were entombed in acrylic resin blocks and cut vertically in the long axis to obtain 1-mm-thick disks from 3 mm (at apical third), 8 mm (at middle third) and 13 mm (at coronal third) away the apical foramen. The images of 120 samples (30 for each group) were scanned by using confocal laser scanning microscopy and analyzed with the ImageJ software. Total penetration area and the root canal area were measured, and the ratio of these values were recorded as sealer penetration ratio. The data were evaluated for each third and in total using one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey's test. The significance level was set to P < 0.05.
resultsIn the apical, middle and coronal thirds and in total, MTAF and AHP, and SS and AHPB had statistically significant identical penetration ratio values. Both SS and AHPB demonstrated statistically considerably greater penetration % as compared to MTAF and AHP in all thirds (P < 0.05), and in total (P < 0.05).
conclusionAHPB and SS provided a higher penetration % than AHP and MTAF in apical, middle and coronal thirds, and in total.
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.