ArticleBMC oral health2026
Physical properties comparison of four bioceramic vs. epoxy resin-based root canal sealers: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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.
- Comparative evaluation sealing ability: Bioceramic versus resin-based sealers by micro-CT analysis.Bioinformation · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe choice of endodontic sealer plays a crucial role in preventing microleakage, maintaining apical integrity, and ensuring durable clinical performance. Among available materials, bioceramic sealers offer bioactivity and chemical bonding potential, whereas epoxy resin-based sealers provide proven stability and low solubility. This study aimed to compare the physicochemical properties of four bioceramic root canal sealers with an epoxy resin-based reference material (AH Plus), focusing on setting time, solubility (with and without thermal cycling), and dimensional change. MATERIALS AND
methodsFive sealers were tested: EndoSeal MTA, CeraSeal, Nano-MTA, NeoSealer Flo (bioceramic), and AH Plus (epoxy resin-based). Setting time was determined according to ISO 6876:2012 using Gilmore needles. Solubility was evaluated under thermocycled (1000 cycles, 5-55 °C) and non-thermocycled conditions. Dimensional change was assessed via pre- and post-immersion micro-CT imaging after 7 days in distilled water.
resultsEndoSeal MTA had the shortest setting time, and NeoSealer Flo the longest (p < 0.0001). AH Plus showed the lowest solubility; NeoSealer Flo had the highest. Thermal cycling did not significantly affect solubility (p > 0.05), but a strong correlation was found between thermocycled and non-thermocycled values (r² = 0.8084, p < 0.0001). AH Plus demonstrated significant volumetric increase, while bioceramic sealers showed varying degrees of shrinkage (p < 0.0001).
conclusionBioceramic sealers demonstrated comparable or superior solubility and adaptation compared with the epoxy resin-based control, although differences in setting time and dimensional change were material-dependent. These findings suggest that selecting sealers according to their physicochemical performance, such as faster setting in single-visit treatments or higher dimensional change in retreatments, may improve the long-term prognosis and clinical success of root canal therapy. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study identifies material-specific strengths and weaknesses that can guide evidence-based selection. Matching the sealer's physicochemical profile to the clinical scenario can optimize treatment longevity and reduce failure risk.
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.