Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40820862›Full record

ArticleAustralian endodontic journal : the journal of the Australian Society of Endodontology Inc2025

In Vitro Assessment of the Effects of Endodontic Sealers on Cell Viability, Adhesion, and Migration.

Anna Carolina Neves Leutz, Victor Augusto Benedicto Dos Santos, Ana Cristina Padilha Janini, Amanda Nowicki de Salles, Brenda Paula Figueiredo de Almeida Gomes, Adriana de Jesus Soares, Talita Tartari, Marina Angélica Marciano

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Australian endodontic journal : the journal of the Australian Society of Endodontology Inc, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

8 authors.

Anna Carolina Neves LeutzDivision of Endodontics, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculdade de Odontologia de Piracicaba (FOP), Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0003-3006-6406
Victor Augusto Benedicto Dos SantosDivision of Pharmacology, Anesthesiology, and Therapeutics, Department of Biosciences, Faculdade de Odontologia de Piracicaba (FOP), Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1715-7146
Ana Cristina Padilha JaniniDivision of Endodontics, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculdade de Odontologia de Piracicaba (FOP), Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3058-8557
Amanda Nowicki de SallesDivision of Endodontics, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculdade de Odontologia de Piracicaba (FOP), Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-1899-131X
Brenda Paula Figueiredo de Almeida GomesDivision of Endodontics, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculdade de Odontologia de Piracicaba (FOP), Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8449-0646
Adriana de Jesus SoaresDivision of Endodontics, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculdade de Odontologia de Piracicaba (FOP), Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8078-1606
Talita TartariDivision of Endodontics, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculdade de Odontologia de Piracicaba (FOP), Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4372-0158
Marina Angélica MarcianoDivision of Endodontics, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculdade de Odontologia de Piracicaba (FOP), Universidade Estadual de Campinas (UNICAMP), Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6244-2531

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the in vitro cytocompatibility and bioactivity of the newly launched calcium silicate-based sealer BioRoot Flow, compared with other calcium silicate-based sealers (AH Plus Bioceramic Sealer and BioRoot RCS) and the epoxy resin-based AH Plus Jet. NIH/3 T3 fibroblasts were used to assess cell viability, adhesion, and migration. Material characterisation was performed using SEM, EDS, and XRD. BioRoot RCS exhibited the highest cell viability, while BioRoot Flow showed fewer adherent cells and reduced migration at 72 h. EDS revealed zirconium content in BioRoot Flow, and XRD confirmed calcite presence in all calcium silicate-based sealers. Variations in cell behaviour may be related to differences in chemical composition and surface properties, highlighting the need for further investigation.

Indexed as

Calcium CompoundsCell MovementRoot Canal Filling MaterialsSilicatesAnimalsBiocompatible MaterialsCell AdhesionCell SurvivalEpoxy ResinsFibroblastsIn Vitro TechniquesMaterials TestingMiceMicroscopy, Electron, ScanningNIH 3T3 CellsSurface PropertiesBiocompatible MaterialsCalcium Compoundscalcium silicateepoxy resin-based root canal sealerEpoxy ResinsRoot Canal Filling MaterialsSilicatescalcium silicatedental cementsendodonticsepoxy resin‐based root canal sealerfibroblasts

Identifiers

PMID40820862
PMCPMC12712885

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.