ArticleFrontiers in dental medicine2026
Physico-chemical analysis of eight pre-mixed hydraulic silicate sealers.
Article in Frontiers in dental medicine, 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
Introduction: Pre-mixed root canal sealers containing hydraulic silicate cements are marketed under the "bioceramic" umbrella term. Eight such sealers were investigated to get a comprehensive overview. Materials and methods: Disclosure of composition was assessed in safety data sheets and instructions for use. Elemental analysis was conducted using energy-dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDS). Flowability, radiopacity, and setting time were tested according to ISO norm 6876 (2012). Knoop hardness was tested after 7 d. Samples were immersed in phosphate-buffered saline for up to 28 d and assessed for continued pH induction and release of calcium ions (Ca), which was measured using atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS). Cumulative aluminum (Al) leaching after 28 d was quantified using AAS. Results: Dispersing agents were not disclosed in 5 of the 8 sealers, and cement components not specified in 4. As assessed by EDS, 4 of the sealers under investigation were Portland cement-related, and 4 were Al-free silicates. The ISO-requested flowability and radiopacity were met by all the sealers. Radiopacity ranged from 3.4 ± 0.1 to 7.4 ± 0.3 mm Al. Setting time ranged from 122 ± 4 min to 4,258 ± 14 min. The sealers containing Al tended to set quicker and reached a considerably higher 7-d hardness than their Al-free counterparts. All sealers maintained an alkaline pH induction over 28 d, but differed in Ca release. Al leaching was observed with 2 of the 4 Portland cement-related sealers, but to a different degree. Conclusion: The materials under investigation differed considerably in their basic properties and their propensity to leach elements.
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.