ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Comparative analysis between resin-based root canal sealer and recent bioceramic-based root canal sealers using MicroCT, film thickness, and solubility.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. 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.
- Setting Characteristics, Solubility, Bioactivity and Interaction with Dentin of Four Calcium Silicate-Based Endodontic Sealers.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study is aimed at evaluating the sealing quality of the single cone obturation technique with resin-based root canal sealers (ADseal root canal sealers, control group) and the novel hydraulic bioceramic-based sealers (Fill Root ST and AH Plus Bioceramic sealers). The assessment was performed by micro-CT void analysis. In addition, film thickness and solubility of the sealers were also evaluated. Materials and methods: Voids were evaluated on clear acrylic resin blocks with a standard artificial root canal model using micro-CT. Physical analysis of the sealers assessed film thickness and solubility. Statistical analysis included one-way ANOVA with Tukey's post-hoc test for multiple comparisons and repeated measure ANOVA for related samples. Results: The AH Plus Bioceramic Sealer exhibited the least canal voids (5.70 %), while the Fill Root ST had intermediate voids, and ADseal had the highest (p < 0.001). The coronal third had the most voids, followed by the middle and apical thirds (p < 0.001). AH Plus Bioceramic Sealer had the thinnest film thickness (19.3 μm), followed by Fill Root ST (42.7 μm), and ADseal (81.7 μm) (p < 0.001). In solubility, ADseal had the lowest (0.9 %), Fill Root ST the highest (2.4 %), and AH Plus Bioceramic intermediate (1.5 %) (p < 0.001). Conclusions: The bioceramic-based sealers (Fill Root ST and AH Plus Bioceramic) showed superior performance compared to ADseal in terms of void formation and film thickness, with voids most frequent in the coronal third and least in the apical third.
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.