ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2025
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.
- Apical delta filling with calcium silicate and epoxy resin sealers using different obturation techniques by microcomputed tomography.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2026Article
- Comparative Apical Sealing Performance of Bioceramic and Resin-Based Sealers: A Fluid Filtration Analysis.Iranian endodontic journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This study aims to evaluate and compare the apical sealing ability of different obturation techniques using bioceramic and silicone-based root canal sealers in an Materials and Methodology: Twenty-five extracted mandibular premolars were standardized to 15 mm root length and instrumented using ProTaper Universal Ni-Ti rotary files. The samples were randomly divided into five groups ( Results: All groups exhibited varying degrees of apical leakage. Group 5 (GuttaFlow 2 with SCO) demonstrated the lowest mean leakage (0.87 ± 0.26 mm), whereas Group 1 (thermoplasticized gutta-percha with MTA Fillapex) had the highest leakage (2.66 ± 0.61 mm) ( Conclusion: Although none of the sealers completely prevented apical leakage, GuttaFlow 2 with SCO exhibited the most effective sealing ability. The findings suggest that silicone-based sealers may provide enhanced apical sealing in root canal therapy. Further studies with larger sample sizes and clinical validation are warranted.
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.