ArticleBMC oral health2025
The effects of sequential and continuous chelation on the dentine tubule penetration of a bioceramic sealer: a confocal laser scanning microscopy 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aims to evaluate the penetration of a bioceramic sealer into dentin tubules when activated with three different irrigation activation techniques—conventional syringe irrigation (CSI), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), and XP-endo Finisher (XPF)—using two different sequential chelating agents, namely, ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) and glycolic acid (GA), and a continuous chelating agent, Dual Rinse HEDP (DR HEDP). MATERIALS AND
methodsNinety-nine extracted healthy human mandibular premolar teeth were included in this study. They were divided into three main groups (n = 33) according to the irrigation regimen and three subgroups (n = 11) according to the activation type. The main groups were Group 1: sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) followed by EDTA (17%), Group 2: NaOCl followed by GA (17%), and Group 3: NaOCl with DR HEDP mixture. The subgroups were Group a: CSI; Group b: PUI; and Group c: XPF. After the root canals were filled with AH Plus® Bioceramic sealer and gutta-percha, horizontal sections of 1 mm thickness were taken from the apical and middle regions. These sections were evaluated for penetration depth, percentage, and area using confocal laser scanning microscopy. The data were analyzed via the Shapiro–Wilk test and a three-way robust analysis of variance test.
resultsIn terms of the main effects of activation type and solution, no significant differences were found in penetration depth, percentage, or area among the groups (p > 0.05). With respect to the main effect of the section, the penetration parameters in the apical Sect. (390 μm, 64.2%, 1.460.000 µm2) were significantly lower than those in the middle Sect. (691 μm, 80.1%, 4.350.000 µm2) (p = 0.001). No statistically significant differences were observed in the three parameters measured among the groups in the activation type–section and solution–section interactions (p > 0.05).
conclusionContinuous chelation protocols applied under different irrigation activation systems did not show superiority over traditional sequential chelation protocols in terms of bioceramic sealer penetration. Chelator and activation combinations were insufficient in the apical region.
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.