Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40604875›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2025

Comparative analysis of dentinal tubule penetration: effects of irrigation activation methods and root canal sealers: in-vitro study.

Yagmur Kilic, Mustafa Mert Tulgar, Emrah Karataslioglu, Tugba Turk

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

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 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Yagmur KilicFaculty Of Dentistry, Department of Endodontics, Izmir Katip Celebi University, Izmir, Turkey. yagmursati@icloud.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1938-6041
Mustafa Mert TulgarFaculty Of Dentistry, Department of Endodontics, Izmir Katip Celebi University, Izmir, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0372-9062
Emrah KaratasliogluFaculty Of Dentistry, Department of Endodontics, Izmir Katip Celebi University, Izmir, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4721-591X
Tugba TurkFaculty Of Dentistry, Department of Endodontics, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3726-3715

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo seal the entire root canal system is the main objective of root canal treatment. While obturating the main root canal, sealing the dentinal tubules that are known to open to the root canal system plays an important role. Present study investigated the dentine tubule penetration of different root canal sealers combined with different irrigation activation methods using an in-vitro model.

methodsThe root canal preperation of the 144 samples was completed using the Ni-Ti rotary K7 system. All samples were divided into 3 groups (n = 48) according to irrigation activation(sonic activation, passive ultrasonic activation and needle activation). Activation groups were divided into 4 subgroups (n = 12) according to the root canal sealer used (GuttaFlow, Bioroot RCS, AH Plus Bio, AH Plus Jet). Horizontal sections taken at the 6 mm level from the apex were examined with CLSM to evaluate the maximum penetration depth and penetration percentage. The normal distribution of numerical variables was assessed using the Shapiro-Wilk normality test. The homogeneity of variances among groups was analyzed with the Levene test. Comparisons for log penetration depth and penetration percentage were made using two-way analysis of variance.

resultsIn terms of penetration area, sonic activation showed significantly higher values compared to needle activation, while ultrasonic activation did not differ significantly from these two methods (p = 0.048). The Bioroot RCS group had a significantly higher penetration area percentage compared to the GuttaFlow group, with no significant differences among the other sealer groups (p = 0.017). In the AH Plus Jet group, the maximum penetration depth with ultrasonic activation was found to be significantly higher compared to needle activation (p = 0.036).

conclusionIt was found that sonic activation and BioRoot RCS were superior in dentinal tubule penetration compared to other groups. All the groups have demonstrated penetration. It is believed that effective dentinal tubule penetration can be achieved with continuous irrigation, properly applied activation systems, and adherence to manufacturer instructions when using root canal sealers.

Indexed as

Dental Pulp CavityDentinRoot Canal Filling MaterialsRoot Canal IrrigantsRoot Canal PreparationTherapeutic IrrigationDimethylpolysiloxanesDrug CombinationsEpoxy ResinsGutta-PerchaHumansIn Vitro TechniquesUltrasonicsDimethylpolysiloxanesDrug Combinationsepoxy resin-based root canal sealerEpoxy ResinsGuttaFlowGutta-PerchaRoot Canal Filling MaterialsRoot Canal IrrigantsConfocal laser scanning microscopyDentine tubule penetrationIrrigation activationRoot canal sealer

Identifiers

PMID40604875
PMCPMC12220567

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.