ArticleEuropean oral research2026
Retreatability of guttaflow bioseal in bulk or with main cone from root canals using ultrasonic, laser, and xp-endo finisher activated techniques.
Article in European oral research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy of ultrasonic, laser, and XP-Endo Finisher activation techniques for the removal of GuttaFlow Bioseal from root canals. Materials and methods: In this study, 64 extracted mandibular premolar teeth were instrumented using ProTaper Next files up to size X3 and randomly divided into two groups (n = 32) based on the obturation method: Group 1 - GuttaFlow Bioseal with gutta-percha, and Group 2 - GuttaFlow Bioseal without gutta-percha. After root filling removal, the specimens were randomly allocated into one of four activation subgroups (n = 8): Subgroup A - Conventional Needle Irrigation; Subgroup B - Passive Ultrasonic Activation; Subgroup C - XP-Endo Finisher; and Subgroup D - Er, Cr: YSGG Laser. The teeth were then sectioned longitudinally, and photographic images were captured under a stereomicroscope. Residual filling materials in the coronal, middle, and apical thirds were measured using ImageJ software. Data were statistically analyzed with three-way ANOVA and Tukey's HSD test (p less than 0.05). Results: The lowest amount of residual filling material was observed in the Er, Cr: YSGG laser group, followed by the XP-Endo Finisher, passive ultrasonic activation, and conventional needle irrigation groups, respectively (p less than 0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in retreatability between GuttaFlow Bioseal used with or without gutta-percha (p = 0.754). Conclusion: This study demonstrates that different activation techniques significantly improve the removal of GuttaFlow Bioseal from root canals; however, none achieved complete removal. Among the tested methods, the Er, Cr: YSGG laser was the most effective, followed by the XP-Endo Finisher and passive ultrasonic activation. These results suggest that the Er, Cr: YSGG laser is a highly effective option for endodontic retreatment.
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.