ArticleScientific reports2026
In vitro evaluation of the effects of different bone grafts on the surface microhardness of NeoPUTTY and MTA Angelus.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The interaction between bone grafts and retrograde filling materials may influence the physicomechanical properties of calcium silicate-based biomaterials used in endodontic surgery. This in vitro study evaluated the effects of allograft, xenograft, and dentin graft on the surface microhardness of NeoPUTTY and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) Angelus. The null hypothesis was that the type of MTA, the type of graft, and the interaction between these two factors would have no statistically significant effect on surface microhardness. Eighty custom-made plastic cylinders were used. Specimens were divided into two main groups filled with NeoPUTTY (n = 40) or MTA Angelus (n = 40). Each group was further subdivided into control (MTA only), allograft, xenograft, and dentin graft subgroups (n = 10). Bone grafts were placed in direct contact with the apical surface of both NeoPUTTY and MTA Angelus. All samples were incubated in Hank's Balanced Salt Solution (HBSS) at 37 °C for 14 days. Surface microhardness was measured using the Vickers microhardness test. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test (p < 0.05). Graft type significantly affected surface microhardness (p < 0.001) under the conditions tested, whereas the main effect of MTA type was not significant (p > 0.05); however, a significant interaction between MTA type and graft type was observed (p < 0.001). The highest microhardness value was observed in the NeoPUTTY-xenograft group (70.21 ± 4.25 HV). No significant differences were found between NeoPUTTY and MTA Angelus in the control and allograft groups. Dentin graft groups exhibited the lowest microhardness values (NeoPUTTY: 21.49 ± 5.54 HV; MTA Angelus: 33.30 ± 5.42 HV). Additionally, microhardness was significantly lower in the dentin graft group combined with NeoPUTTY compared with MTA Angelus (p < 0.05). Within the limitations of this in vitro study, different bone graft materials were associated with differences in surface microhardness of MTA-based retrograde filling materials. The interaction between graft type and filling material may contribute to variations in surface microhardness under direct-contact experimental conditions and should be interpreted with caution.
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.