ArticleOdontology2026
Confocal laser scanning and microCT evaluation of the intratubular penetration and sealing ability of calcium silicate and epoxy-resin endodontic sealers.
Article in Odontology, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the sealing ability of different calcium silicate-based and epoxy-resin endodontic sealers with single-cone cold technique through confocal laser scanning microscope (CLSM) and micro computed tomography (MicroCT) analysis. An in-vitro evaluation was conducted of voids and gaps occurring within the sealer and at its interfaces with the cone and canal walls, as well as of the penetration depth of the materials examined. Sixty-five single-rooted teeth with fully formed apex were collected. After root canal shaping the specimens were distributed in six different groups (n = 10) and a control group (n = 5): Group AH Plus Epoxy Resin Sealer (Dentsply Sirona), Group AH Plus Bioceramic Sealer (Dentsply Sirona), Group BC Sealer (Brasseler), Group BC Sealer HiFlow (Brasseler), Group BioRoot Flow Sealer (Septodont), group experimental sealer (Dentsply Sirona). All canals were sealed with single cone technique with the addition of a fluorescent dye. The specimens were MicroCT scanned and sectioned at four different levels of analysis for the CLSM evaluation. The differences between groups were analyzed with one-way ANOVA and post-hoc Bonferroni test (P < 0.05). Kruskall-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for the non-parametric statistical analysis (P < 0.05). The microCT analysis reported an higher presence of voids and empty spaces for BioRoot Flow Sealer (Septodont) (P < 0.001). The CLMS imaging showed no statistical difference between the groups at the different points of analysis except for AH Plus Epoxy Resin Sealer (Dentsply Sirona) that showed a higher rate of empty spaces at the apical level (P = 0.044). No statistical differences were recorded for the total percentage of CLSM gap areas between groups. Interestingly, voids were most prevalent in the coronal and middle sections of all samples, corresponding to regions, where the canal is typically more oval (P = 0.03). Among the materials tested, the Experimental Sealer (Dentsply Sirona) achieved the deepest penetration into dentinal tubules (P = 0.038). The sealing performance of endodontic sealers used with the single-cone cold technique appears adequate and depends on both the properties of the sealer and the anatomy of the root canal.
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.