ArticleBMC oral health2025
Removal efficacy of two different root canal sealers in retrograde cavities: a micro-CT study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the efficiency of material removal and preparation time for AH Plus Resin (AHR) and AH Plus Bioceramic (AHB) sealers in retrograde cavities, while assessing the impact of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) irrigation compared to saline.
methodsThirty-two extracted mandibular premolars were instrumented to an apical size of 0.35 mm and randomly divided into two groups (n = 16) based on the sealer type: AHR or AHB. After one month of storage, the apical 3 mm of each specimen was resected, and retrograde cavities were prepared to a depth of 3.5 mm using ultrasonic tips under indirect vision. The cavities were irrigated with either 17% EDTA or saline, and material removal was evaluated through micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) scans conducted pre- and post-preparation. The time required for retrograde preparation was also recorded. Kruskal-Wallis and independent t-tests were performed using SPSS with a 5% significance threshold.
resultsThere was no significant difference in material removability between the two sealers or between EDTA and saline irrigation protocols (p > 0.05). However, retrograde cavity preparation with AHB required significantly more time compared to AHR (p < 0.05).
conclusionBoth AHR and AHB sealers demonstrated effective removability when the retrograde cavity was prepared using ultrasonic tips, and the choice of irrigation solution did not influence cleaning efficiency. However, the extended preparation time for AHB suggests the need for additional caution and effort during its removal in retrograde cavity preparation.
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.