ArticleHead & face medicine2025
Evaluation the impact of access cavity design and activation of calcium silicate-based sealer with EDDY and XP-Endo Finisher on sealer penetration into dentinal tubules: a confocal laser scanning microscopy study.
Article in Head & face medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the effects of access cavity design and activation procedures on the penetration depth and bond strength of calcium silicate-based sealers to dentin, while also distinguishing the influence of the root level as an anatomical reference point.
methodsSixty-six mandibular molars were randomly divided into two groups based on the access cavity design (traditional (TEC) or conservative (CEC)). The distal root canals were prepared using Reciproc files (40.06). The fluorescent calcium tracer Fluo-3 was added to the calcium silicate- based sealer CeraSeal to evaluate sealer penetration into dentinal tubules in confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM).Each access cavity group was further divided into three subgroups according to the sealer activation technique (Non-activation (NA), EDDY, XP-Endo Finisher (XP-F)) (n = 11). Root slices of 2.0 mm thickness (± 0.1 mm) were obtained at 3-5 mm and 8-10 mm from the root apex for CLSM to evaluate the percentage of sealer penetration. The bond strength was assessed with an Instron machine. Statistical analysis was performed using three-way ANOVA with Bonferroni correction, with the significance level set at 0.05.
resultsThere were no significant interaction effects among the independent variables (access cavity design, activation procedures and root level) (P > 0.05); however, each variable individually showed a significant main effect on both the percentage of sealer penetration and bond strength (P < 0.001). A significant main effect of access cavity design was observed, with TECs exhibiting significantly higher values than CECs in both outcomes (P < 0.001). Similarly, the root level significantly influenced results, with greater sealer penetration and bond strength at 9 mm compared to 4 mm (P < 0.001). The activation procedure also had a significant impact (P < 0.001). Post hoc comparisons using the Bonferroni correction revealed that both EDDY and XP-F significantly improved sealer penetration and bond strength compared to no activation (NA) (P < 0.001). However, no statistically significant difference was observed between EDDY and XP-F (P > 0.05).
conclusionThe TEC design, the use of EDDY and XP-Endo Finisher activation techniques and the examination of coronal root levels resulted in a greater percentage in sealer penetration and higher values of bond strength. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: Clinical Trial Number: Not applicable.
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.