ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2024
Comparative Evaluation of pH, Calcium Ion Release, and Setting Time of Premixed and Freshly Mixed Tricalcium Silicate-based Endodontic Materials: An
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Evaluation of Mineral Trioxide Aggregate, Biodentine, and Calcium Hydroxide for Apical Closure in Nonvital Immature Teeth: A Randomized Controlled Trial.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2026Article
- In vitro evaluation of the effects of different bone grafts on the surface microhardness of NeoPUTTY and MTA Angelus.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- In Vitro Biocompatibility of Calcium Silicate-Based Materials for Retrograde Endodontic Treatment Under Different Setting Conditions.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- In Vitro Assessment of Corrosion Rate, Vickers Hardness and SEM Analysis of Glass Ionomer Cements and Calcium Silicate-Based Materials.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
Background and objective: During the last 200 years, there have been many changes in the way of performing endodontic treatment. The increased demand from patients for saving their teeth has led to the development of various innovative equipment and advances in the field of material sciences. Thus, the standard protocol of endodontic treatment has undergone several modifications. Bioceramic materials in endodontics can be considered a magnanimous entity with the ability to change the prognosis of many cases, especially those with poor prognosis. Aim: The aim of this Materials and methods: Polyethylene tubes measuring 10 mm in length × 1.0 mm in diameter were used. Group I ( Results: The results of mean pH values of all three study groups showed that the overall mean pH value of ProRoot MTA (group I) was 10.99 ± 0.782, followed by group II, that is, Biodentine with 10.52 ± 1.108, and the least values were obtained from NeoPutty MTA (group III) with 9.77 ± 1.103, respectively ( Conclusion: The innovative endodontic cement, ProRoot MTA, exhibited an enhanced alkaline pH value and calcium ion release compared to Biodentine and NeoPutty MTA as bioceramic tricalcium silicate-based endodontic materials. How to cite this article: N S, Manoharan M, Veerabadhran MM,
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.