ArticleJournal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects2025
Investigation of surface roughness caused by different irrigation solutions on Biodentine and NeoPutty MTA used in perforation repair.
Article in Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aimed to investigate the effect of different irrigation solutions on the surface roughness of NeoPutty MTA and Biodentine materials used as perforation repair materials. Methods: Thirty-two Teflon blocks were divided into M (NeoPutty MTA) and B (Biodentine) groups, which were further divided into maleic acid (n=8) and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) (n=8) groups. The surface roughness of all the samples was determined by scanning with an atomic force microscopy (AFM) device before and after soaking in 7% maleic acid and 17% EDTA solutions. For data analysis, the Mann-Whitney U test was used to compare two independent groups, and the Wilcoxon signed rank test was used for dependent groups. Results: According to the findings of the study, no significant difference was found between the initial roughness of NeoPutty MTA and Biodentine materials. However, EDTA solution produced statistically significant surface roughness in Biodentine material, while maleic acid solution produced statistically significant surface roughness in NeoPutty MTA material. Conclusion: Further studies are necessary to investigate the effects of physicochemical changes induced by irrigation solutions in repair materials on bacterial adhesion and restorative adhesive procedures.
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.