ArticleBMC oral health2025
The comparison of strip perforation repair using proroot MTA and calcium silicate-based sealer with cold hydraulic technique; bacterial leakage and micro-CT studies.
Article in BMC oral health, 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.
- Comparison of push-out bond strength and Si QScientific reports · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundStrip perforations present a significant challenge in endodontic treatment due to the complexity of achieving an efficient seal, which can directly impact treatment outcomes. While bioceramic materials are commonly used for root repair, limited evidence exists regarding their effectiveness in sealing strip perforations. This study aims to investigate the sealing ability of ProRoot MTA, AH Plus, and iRoot SP in strip perforation repair using a bacterial leakage model, as well as to evaluate the presence of gaps and voids using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT).
methodsForty human mandibular molars were used in this study. A strip perforation was created on the distal surface of the mesial root, between the coronal and middle thirds, using a Gate Glidden drill size #3. Tooth specimens were divided into three experimental groups (n = 12) and two control groups (positive and negative control groups, n = 2 each). The perforations in the experimental groups were repaired with ProRoot MTA, AH Plus using the lateral compaction technique, and iRoot SP using the cold hydraulic obturation technique. The sealing performance of the repair materials was assessed using a bacterial leakage model with Enterococcus faecalis (ATCC 29212). Leakage was monitored over 45 days, and statistical analysis was conducted using Kaplan-Meier survival curve analysis. Gaps and voids at the perforation sites were evaluated with micro-CT analysis, and statistical comparisons were made using one-way ANOVA.
resultsThe ProRoot MTA group exhibited the highest percentage of non-leakage samples (75.0%), followed by the iRoot SP group (66.7%) and the AH Plus group (41.7%). However, no statistically significant differences were detected among the groups. The micro-CT analysis demonstrated that the mean percentage of gaps and voids was significantly higher in the AH Plus group compared to both the ProRoot MTA and iRoot SP groups (p < 0.05).
conclusionProRoot MTA showed the highest proportion of non-leakage samples, followed by iRoot SP and AH Plus, with no significant differences in leakage time. Micro-CT analysis revealed significantly more voids in the AH Plus group. Within the study's limitations, bioceramic sealers showed comparable sealing performance to MTA. Further studies are needed to confirm these findings.
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.