ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Evaluation of Dentinal Tubule Penetration, Void Formation, and Push-Out Bond Strength of Premixed Injectable Bioceramic Sealers and AH Plus.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSuccessful root canal obturation requires a fluid-tight seal to prevent reinfection and promote healing. The aim of this study was to compare dentinal tubule penetration, void formation, and push-out bond strength of three premixed injectable bioceramic sealers (BioRoot Flow, ZenSeal, and Bio-C Sealer) with those of the conventional epoxy resin-based sealer AH Plus. MATERIALS AND
methodsNinety-six extracted human mandibular premolars with straight single canals were decoronated to 14 mm root length and prepared using ProTaper Gold rotary files up to F3, followed by standardized irrigation. The teeth were randomly divided into four groups (n = 24 each): BioRoot Flow, ZenSeal, Bio-C Sealer, and AH Plus (control). All the canals were obturated using the single-cone technique with F3 gutta-percha cones. After two weeks of storage at 37 °C and 100% humidity, the specimens were sectioned. Dentinal tubule penetration (n = 8 per group) was evaluated using confocal laser scanning microscopy with rhodamine B-labelled sealers. The void area (n = 8 per group) was measured under a stereomicroscope using the ImageJ software. Push-out bond strength (n = 8 per group) was tested using a universal testing machine. The data were then analyzed (p < 0.05).
resultsBioRoot Flow showed significantly greater dentinal tubule penetration than the other sealers in the coronal, middle, and apical thirds (p < 0.001), followed by Bio-C, ZenSeal, and AH Plus (lowest). Void formation was significantly higher in AH Plus than in all bioceramic sealers (p < 0.001), with BioRoot Flow and Bio-C exhibiting the smallest number of voids. The push-out bond strength was the highest for AH Plus across all levels (p < 0.001), followed by BioRoot Flow, ZenSeal, and Bio-C. In all groups, penetration and bond strength decreased significantly from coronal to apical, while the void area showed the opposite trend.
conclusionPremixed injectable bioceramic sealers, especially BioRoot Flow, provided superior dentinal tubule penetration and significantly reduced void formation compared to AH Plus, with clinically acceptable bond strength. These findings support BioRoot Flow as an effective alternative for improving sealing performance in root canal obturation.
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.