ArticleBMC oral health2026
Evaluating the feasibility of calcium silicate-based sealers for strip perforation repair compared to mineral trioxide aggregate: an in-vitro study on bond strength.
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.
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
Abstract
backgroundRepairing strip perforations is challenging due to limited access and visibility. Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) is the standard material for perforation repair but is difficult to handle, whereas calcium silicate-based sealers (CSBSs) offer good adaptation, biocompatibility, and easier application during obturation. However, their ability to repair perforations during canal obturation, has not been validated in blood-contaminated conditions. This in vitro study compared the push-out bond strength and failure modes of iRoot SP (IR), BioRoot RCS (BR), and ProRoot MTA in strip-perforated canals under blood and saline contamination.
methodsThirty mandibular molars with two separate mesial root canals were selected. Mesial root canals were prepared using reciprocating files, and strip perforation was created on the distal surface of the mesial roots. The roots were randomly assigned to blood or saline contamination. Each group was then randomly obturated with (1) Gutta-percha + IR, (2) Gutta-percha + BR, or (3) ProRoot MTA (10 canals/subgroup). Each root was sectioned into a slice at the perforation site for push-out testing. Bond-strength data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and independent T-test (p < 0.05). Failure modes were assessed under a stereomicroscope.
resultsMTA exhibited significantly higher bond strength than both sealers under all conditions (p < 0.05). Blood contamination significantly increased the bond strength of IR (p = 0.016) but had no effect on BR (p = 0.878) or MTA (p = 0.33). MTA showed adhesive failures, while IR and BR exhibited mixed and adhesive failures under blood contamination.
conclusionsProRoot MTA showed the highest bond strength and distinct failure modes. Blood contamination increased IR's bond strength but did not affect BR or ProRoot MTA. Under in vitro conditions, CSBSs may offer a feasible option for repairing strip perforations during obturation, but further studies are needed to confirm clinical applicability.
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.