ArticleCureus2026
Evaluation of the Penetration Depth of Four Different Root Canal Sealers into Dentinal Tubules: A Scanning Electron Microscopic Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim This study was designed to establish the average depth of penetration of four different root canal sealers into the dentinal tubules at the cervical, middle, and apical third levels. Methodology Forty-eight mandibular premolars were decoronated, and cleaning and shaping were done in a crown-down manner using ProTaper Gold (Densply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) rotary instruments. To simulate smear layer removal in a clinical setting, all canals were then irrigated with 3 ml of 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), i.e., SmearClear (Sybron Endo, Glendora, CA, USA) for one minute, followed by 3 ml of 3% sodium hypochlorite. Canal irrigation was performed with 5 ml of saline to get rid of excess irrigating solution. All the samples were randomised into four groups based on the sealer by a person not related to the study to ensure anonymity, as follows: Group A: Zinc oxide eugenol sealer (ZOE); Group B: AH Plus sealer (Densply Maillefer); Group C: Apexit Plus sealer (Ivoclaar vivadent, Gurugram, India); Group D: mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) Fillapex sealer (Angelus, Torrance, CA, USA). Obturation of the samples was done using the lateral compaction, and samples were then sectioned in the bucco-lingual mode using a disc under copious irrigation using distilled water. Samples were dehydrated and gold sputtered for scanning electron microscopy (SEM) evaluation. Data was pooled and interpreted using the Mann-Whitney U test and Kruskal-Wallis test. Results Analysis showed a statistically significant difference with a p-value of <0.05 between the coronal third, middle third, and apical third in all the groups. In pairwise comparison, the mean depth of penetration of MTA Fillapex was much higher than that of Apexit Plus, AH Plus, and ZOE sealer at the coronal, middle third, and apical third levels. Conclusion Within the limitations of this in vitro SEM study, MTA Fillapex demonstrated superior dentinal tubule penetration compared with AH Plus, Apexit, and zinc oxide eugenol-based sealer.
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.