ArticleBioinformation2026
Comparative evaluation sealing ability: Bioceramic versus resin-based sealers by micro-CT analysis.
Article in Bioinformation, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Achieving a hermetic three-dimensional seal of the root canal system remains a primary objective of endodontic therapy, yet comparative evidence on the sealing efficacy of contemporary bioceramic and resin-based sealers remains limited. Therefore, it is interest to compare the sealing ability of three bioceramic sealers (Bio-C Sealer, CeraSeal and EndoSequence BC Sealer HiFlow) with two resin-based sealers (AH Plus and ThermaSeal Plus) using micro-computed tomography. Seventy-five extracted single-rooted human premolars were obturated using single-cone technique for bioceramic sealers and warm vertical compaction for resin-based sealers, followed by three-dimensional assessment of void volume and sealer adaptation. Bioceramic sealers demonstrated significantly lower total void percentages (0.89-1.24%) compared with resin-based sealers (1.78-2.15%) (p < 0.001), with EndoSequence BC Sealer HiFlow showing the best adaptation and lowest void volume. Thus, we show that contemporary bioceramic sealers provide superior sealing ability and canal wall adaptation compared with resin-based sealers, supporting their clinical use for predictable 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.