ArticleBMC oral health2025
Evaluation of the tubular penetration of two different types of nanoparticle root canal sealers over apically separated files: a scanning electron microscopic study (in vitro study).
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe separation of root canal instruments can significantly impact the quality of canal obturation and the long-term success of endodontic treatment. Combining the benefits of nanoparticles and ultrasonic activation aim to enhance tubular sealer penetration and achieve proper sealing to improve outcome in such complex cases. AIM OF THE STUDY: This study aimed to evaluate tubular penetration of two nanoparticles modified root canal sealers compared to conventional sealers using ultrasonic activation over an apically separated file analyzed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). MATERIALS AND
methodsForty extracted single canaled mandibular premolar teeth were decoronated and prepared using M-Pro (IMD, Shanghai, China) nickel titanium rotary files which were intentionally separated at apical third. Teeth were randomly divided into four equal groups based on the type of sealer used. Group I: Adseal (Rs) (Meta Biomed, Cheongju, Korea) resin-based sealer, group II: Adseal resin-based sealer modified with silver nanoparticles (Rs/Ag), group III: Ceraseal (BC) (Meta Biomed, Cheongju, Korea) bioceramic sealer and group IV: Ceraseal bioceramic sealer modified with bioactive glass nanoparticles (BC/BG). The tested sealers were applied in all root specimens using lentulo-spiral size #25 (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) except the BC group where the sealer was injected into the root using plastic delivery tips provided by the manufacturer. All sealers were ultrasonically activated then obturated using cold lateral compaction technique. All samples were sectioned longitudinally in a buccolingual direction and analyzed for tubular sealer penetration using SEM at the area of separated file.
resultsThe maximum mean tubular sealer penetration depth, measured in microns, was evident in the BC sealer group (97.00 ± 14.78) followed by the Rs/Ag group (94.12 ± 15.89) with no significant difference between them (p = 1.00). However, a significant difference (p < 0.05) was found when comparing these groups to the Rs group (73.00 ± 7.53) and the BC/BG group (69.78 ± 15.19). No significant difference (p = 1.00) was observed between the Rs and BC/BG groups.
conclusionsUnder the parameters of this in vitro study, conventional bioceramic sealer and resin-based sealer modified with silver nanoparticles exhibit more tubular penetration depth over apically separated file compared to conventional resin-based sealer and bioceramic sealer modified with bioactive glass nanoparticles.
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.