ArticleScientific reports2025
Assessment of volume and depth loss of incompletely set hydraulic calcium silicate cements used as root-end fillings in a simulated surgical model.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Marginal Adaptability of Harvard MTA and Biodentine Used as Root-End Filling Material: A Comparative SEM Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Root-end filling materials often face environmental exposure before completely setting, which may alter their properties compared to completely set samples in most studies. This in-vitro study evaluated the volumetric changes and depth of material loss of three incompletely set hydraulic calcium silicate cements in a simulated root-end filling model. Thirty prepared human mandibular premolars with retrograde cavities were randomly divided into three groups (n = 10), each filled with ProRoot MTA, Biodentine, or Endosequence root repair material fast-set putty (ERRM-FSP), and submerged in phosphate-buffered saline. Micro-CT assessed changes at 15 min, 24 h, 7 days, 14 days, and 30 days after root-end filling. All materials exhibited volumetric reduction and depth loss over time. At 24 h, Biodentine exhibited the highest volumetric change. At 30 days, ProRoot MTA and Biodentine had significantly higher depth loss than ERRM-FSP, which showed the least change in both parameters. This study suggests ERRM-FSP offers superior volumetric stability as a root-end filling material in surgical situations, making it a potentially better choice compared to ProRoot MTA and Biodentine.
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.