ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Evaluation of the physicochemical properties and adhesive interface quality of BioRoot Flow and BioRoot RCS endodontic sealers: An in vitro study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
objectiveBioceramic sealers have been increasingly used in endodontics due to their favorable physicochemical and biological properties. However, evidence regarding the physicochemical properties, push-out bond strength, and adhesive interface characteristics of BioRoot Flow compared with other root canal sealers remains limited. Therefore, this study evaluated the physicochemical properties, push-out bond strength, failure pattern, and adhesive interface quality of BioRoot Flow (BRF), BioRoot RCS (BRR), and the epoxy resin-based sealer AH Plus (AHP).
methodsSetting time, dimensional change, solubility, radiopacity, and flow were assessed following ANSI/ADA Specification No. 57. Setting time was recorded using cylindrical molds tested with a Gillmore needle. Dimensional change was measured in five specimens per sealer before and after 30 days in distilled water. Solubility was assessed in ten specimens after seven days of immersion, followed by desiccation. Radiopacity was evaluated using acrylic plates radiographed beside an aluminum step wedge. Flow was assessed according to ANSI/ADA standards. For bond strength and interface analysis, thirty single-rooted teeth were prepared with the Reciproc system and irrigated with sodium hypochlorite and EDTA. Canals were obturated with the single-cone technique using the tested sealers (n = 10). Three slices were obtained from each root third; two were used for push-out testing and failure analysis, and one for confocal laser scanning microscopy.
resultsAHP showed the shortest setting time, highest radiopacity, and greatest flow. BRF exhibited the highest solubility, while dimensional change did not differ among materials. Bond strength varied significantly among sealers and root thirds; AHP presented the highest values, followed by BRF and BRR. Adhesive failures predominated for AHP, whereas bioceramic sealers showed mainly mixed failures.
conclusionAHP demonstrated superior physicochemical properties, higher bond strength, and better adhesive interface adaptation. BRF performed better than BRR regarding bonding and interface quality.
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.