ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2025
Comparative evaluation of three accidentally extruded sealers in periapical healing - An evidence - based study.
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 2025. 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.
- Sample size calculation practices in original research articles of the Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics (2021-2025).Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- Clinical implications of apically extruded resin-based sealers: A long-term observation.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The present study aimed to evaluate the periapical healing of root canal treatment after accidental extrusion and rate of resorption of three different base endodontic sealers. Materials and Methods: Seventy-five patients with single visit root canal treated teeth with accidental extrusion of sealer were selected based on inclusion and exclusion criteria and were allocated into three equal groups based on different base endodontic sealers used during obturation; Grossman, Sealapex™, and Seal-pex. Radiographic evaluation was done to assess periapical healing and rate of resorption at baseline, 1, 3, and 6 months. Statistical analysis was done using one-way repeated measured analysis of variance. Results: At the end of 6 months in Group 1 (Grossman), healing was rated as unchanged in 0 patients (0%), reduced in 0 patients (0%), almost absent in 2 patients (8%) and absent in 23 patients (92%). In Group 2 (sealapex), healing was rated as unchanged in 1 patient (4%), reduced in 6 patients (24%), almost absent in 6 patients (24%), and absent in 12 patients (48%). In Group 3 (seal-pex), healing was rated as unchanged in 2 patients (8%), reduced in 10 patients (40%), almost absent in 6 patients (24%) and absent in 7 patients (28%). Conclusions: Sealapex™ has shown better periapical lesion healing compared to Grossman Sealer and Seal-pex and Grossman Sealer had shown faster rate of resorption compared to Sealapex™ and seal-pex™.
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.