ArticleCureus2025
An In Vitro Confocal Study to Compare the Effect of Two Cross-Linking Agents on Apical Microleakage of a Root-End Filling Material.
Article in Cureus, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE(S): This in vitro study was conducted to assess the impact of bioactive glass (BAG) and 6.5% proanthocyanidin (PA) as pretreatment agents on apical microleakage of the root end filling material. MATERIALS AND
methodsForty-five single-rooted premolars were cleaned, autoclaved, and underwent root canal treatment. The teeth were decoronated to standardize tooth length to 14 mm, with the coronal end sealed with flowable composite. Apical resection at 3 mm from the apex was performed, followed by root end cavity preparation using ultrasonic tips to a depth of 3 mm. Samples were then divided into three groups (n=15): Group A (no pretreatment before mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) placement), Group B (6.5% PA pretreatment before MTA placement), and Group C (bioactive glass pretreatment before MTA placement). After pretreatment and root end filling in respective groups, samples were coated with nail varnish (except the surface restored with MTA) and immersed in 2% rhodamine B dye for 24 hours, followed by longitudinal sectioning, and examined for apical dye penetration under CLSM (confocal laser scanning microscope) at 40X magnification.
resultsComparing the mean dye penetration of three groups, ANOVA showed statistically significant dye penetration among the groups (F=117.40, p < 0.001). Further, comparing the difference in mean dye penetration between the groups, Tukey's post-hoc test showed significantly lower dye penetration in both Group B and Group C as compared to Group A. Moreover, the difference in mean dye penetration of Group C showed significantly lower dye penetration as compared to Group B. CONCLUSION(S): Pretreatment agents significantly improved the sealing ability of root-end filling material by enhancing bonding to dentin through collagen cross-linking, which stabilizes exposed collagen and promotes mineral deposition, thus preventing bacterial infiltration over time.
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.