ArticleBrazilian dental journal2025
Evaluation of physicochemical and mechanical properties of two experimental premixed calcium silicate sealers.
Article in Brazilian dental journal, 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.
- Ready-to-use or Powder/Liquid Bioceramic Sealer: Micro-CT analysis of root canal filling removal according to ultrasonic agitation.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The study aimed to evaluate the physicochemical properties of two experimental root canal sealers (CEO 1 and CEO 2) and compare them with Bio-C Sealer (BC) and AH Plus Bioceramic (AHPB). Setting time was evaluated following ISO 6876 Standard, radiopacity was assessed by radiographic analysis in millimeters of aluminum, and flow was also evaluated following ISO 6876. Solubility was assessed through mass loss (%) after 7 days of immersion in distilled water, hydroxyl and calcium ions release was measured by pH-meter and atomic absorption spectrophotometer, respectively. Push-out was tested at the universal test machine. The data were statistically compared using a 5% significance level. CEO 1 and CEO 2 showed higher setting times (p<0.05) and all sealers demonstrated radiopacity higher than 3mm/Al; however, lower radiopacity and flow values were detected in the presence of both experimental sealers when compared with BC and AHPB (p<0.05). No difference was found among all sealers for solubility (p>0.05). BC and CEO 2 had higher pH values at the initial time (p<0.05) while AHPB at the final time (p<0.05). In general, no significant difference between all sealers at all times was observed, except at 168h for CEO 1, which released more calcium ions than CEO 2 (p<0.05). BC and AHPB provided a superior push-out (p<0.05), and cohesive failures were predominant for all sealers. Both experimental sealers exhibited physicochemical properties similar to commercial endodontics sealers.
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.