ArticleActa stomatologica Croatica2025
Evaluation of the Bond Strength of Bioglass-Based Root Canal Filling Materials.
Article in Acta stomatologica Croatica, 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.
- Effect of Root Canal Drying Methods on Bioceramic Sealer Bond Strength.Acta stomatologica Croatica · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the bond strength of a new endodontic filling material containing added bioactive glass in comparison to a conventional polydimethylsiloxane-based material. Materials and methods: Fourteen single-rooted teeth were chemo mechanically prepared, divided into two test groups and filled with the test material. The samples were embedded in acrylic resin and sectioned into 1 mm thick slices using a diamond saw. An average of 8 samples was obtained from each tooth (GuttaFlow2 n=37, GuttaFlow bioseal n= 34). The force required to fracture each individual sample was measured using the 'push out' test method. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test assessed the 'bonding strength' distribution, and the Mann-Whitney U test compared bonding strength differences between the filling material groups. Results: The Mann-Whitney U test showed no statistically significant difference between the two tested groups (P > 0.05). Conclusion: No statistically significant differences in bond strength between tested materials were observed.
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.