ArticleBMC oral health2026
Coronal tubule penetration of different calcium silicate materials in regenerative endodontics: a comparative study with a novel imaging method.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. 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
objectivesThis study evaluated the coronal dentinal tubule penetration of three calcium silicate-based materials used in regenerative endodontic procedures. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty extracted human mandibular premolars were sectioned 5 mm from the apex and prepared with Peeso reamers to simulate immature apices. Regenerative procedures followed AAE guidelines. Before placement of calcium hydroxide, canals were irrigated with 20 mL 2.5% NaOCl for 5 min and 20 mL 17% EDTA for 5 min, respectively. The canals were sealed with Cavit and incubated for four weeks. In the second visit simulation, the temporary restoration was removed. After removal and irrigation with 17% EDTA, human blood was introduced 3–4 mm below the cemento-enamel junction, and a collagen matrix was placed over the clot. Samples were randomly divided into three groups (n = 20) and capped with Biodentine, Dia-Root Bio MTA, or Bio-C Repair, each mixed with 0.01% rhodamine B. After incubation at 37 °C and 100% humidity for two weeks, 2-mm coronal root sections were analyzed with the Cytation™ 5 Cell Imaging Multimode Reader. Dentinal tubule penetration was measured at four standardized points using ImageJ. Statistical analysis used the Shapiro-Wilk, ANOVA, and Duncan tests (p < 0.05).
resultsBiodentine and Bio-C Repair showed significantly greater maximum penetration depths than Dia-Root Bio MTA (p = 0.001). Bio-C Repair also exhibited the highest mean penetration depth, significantly higher than the other materials (p = 0.026).
conclusionsBio-C Repair demonstrated superior coronal dentinal tubule penetration compared with Biodentine and Dia-Root Bio MTA. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Bio-C Repair may be a reliable material for regenerative endodontic procedures requiring an effective coronal seal.
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.