ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2026
Histopathological evaluation of bone tissue response to endodontic sealers and gutta-percha using an intraosseous implantation model in Wistar rats.
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 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
Aim: To comparatively evaluate the biological response of bone tissue to different endodontic sealers and gutta-percha (GP) using an intraosseous implantation model in Wistar rats. Materials and Methods: Bone tissue responses to six endodontic materials, resin-based sealer (Seal Pex), calcium hydroxide-based sealer (Sealapex), silicone-based sealer (GuttaFlow 2), calcium silicate-based sealer (Ceraseal), MTA-based sealer (MTA Fillapex), and GP, were evaluated in 21 Wistar rats. An empty cavity served as the control. Standardized bone cavities were prepared in the femur and filled with the test materials. Histological evaluation was performed at 7, 30, and 90 days ( Results: All materials induced an acute inflammatory response at 7 days. Resin-based sealer and MTA Fillapex showed significantly higher inflammatory cell infiltration, giant cell presence, and abscess formation. At 30 and 90 days, calcium hydroxide-based, calcium silicate-based, and silicone-based sealers, along with GP, demonstrated reduced inflammation, improved collagen organization, and advanced hard tissue barrier formation. In contrast, resin-based sealer and MTA Fillapex exhibited persistent inflammation and delayed bone healing. Conclusion: Bone tissue response to endodontic obturation materials was material- and time-dependent. Although all tested materials are routinely used in clinical practice, calcium hydroxide-based, calcium silicate-based, and silicone-based sealers, along with GP, exhibited a more favorable biological response over time. The comparatively prolonged inflammation observed with resin-based sealer and MTA Fillapex underscores the need for careful material selection and controlled obturation, particularly in cases with periapical involvement.
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.