ArticleOdontology2026
Evaluation of a novel bioceramic sealer NeoSEALER Flo on the activation and polarization of macrophage.
Article in Odontology, 2026. 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.
- Cytotoxicity of Root Canal Sealers and Potential Clinical Implications: A Comprehensive Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Macrophages play a crucial role in bone repair associated with apical periodontitis. NeoSEALER Flo is a promising sealer for root canal obturation, but its effects on macrophages have not been evaluated. This study aims to investigate the impact of NeoSEALER Flo on the cytotoxicity, polarization, and activation of macrophages, in comparison with the commonly used sealer iRoot SP. Briefly, bone marrow-derived macrophages (BMDMs) were exposed to varying concentrations of NeoSEALER Flo or iRoot SP extracts for 24 h and 48 h to assess their cytotoxicity. BMDMs were stimulated with NeoSEALER Flo or iRoot SP, in the presence or absence of the M1 agonist lipopolysaccharide (LPS) and the M2 stimuli interleukin 4 (IL-4), respectively. Immunofluorescence, western blotting, and qPCR were used to evaluate the expression of M1 markers (iNos, IL-1β, Ccl12) and M2 marker Cd206 and Arginase 1 (Arg1). The results showed that both iRoot SP and NeoSEALER Flo exhibited favorable biocompatibility, with a sharp decline at high concentrations (50 mg/mL). Moreover, NeoSEALER Flo and iRoot SP each demonstrated immunomodulatory capacity by suppressing M1 markers and fostering M2 macrophage activation. Notably, NeoSEALER Flo displayed a markedly stronger response, achieving superior efficacy in both suppressing M1 markers and promoting the expression of M2 markers relative to iRoot SP. In conclusion, NeoSEALER Flo demonstrated a consistently favorable biocompatibility profile, suppressing pro-inflammatory M1 activation while amplifying anti-inflammatory M2 polarization, highlighting NeoSEALER Flo's potential to mitigate inflammation and promote tissue repair in clinical applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41198999What 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.