ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Physicochemical performance and biological response of ready-to-use bioceramic endodontic sealers.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study evaluated the physicochemical and biological properties of three ready-to-use bioceramic sealers, BioRoot MATERIALS AND
methodsSetting time, solubility, pH, radiopacity, and flow were assessed following ISO standards. Biological response was evaluated by cell viability using the XTT assay, and gene expression of osteogenic and inflammatory markers was analyzed by quantitative PCR. Data were analyzed at a 5% significance level.
resultsEC showed the shortest initial setting time, followed by ZS, BRF, and AH (P < 0.05). EC also had the shortest final setting time, followed by ZS, AHP, and BRF, with significant differences among groups except between AHP and BRF (P > 0.05). EC exhibited the lowest flow (P < 0.01), whereas no differences were observed among the other sealers (P > 0.05). Radiopacity was lowest for BRF, followed by EC, ZS, and AHP, with no difference between EC and ZS (P > 0.05). AHP showed the lowest solubility, followed by EC, ZS, and BRF (P < 0.001). All sealers demonstrated an alkaline pH, which decreased over time. ZS showed the highest cell viability, followed by EC, BRF, and AHP (P < 0.05). BRF showed significant upregulation of IL10, ALPL, TNF, TGFB1, and TNFSF11 expression with 24 h of exposure (P < 0.05), whereas at 48 h, TNFSF11 was significantly upregulated with AHP exposure (P < 0.05).
conclusionsAHP demonstrated superior physicochemical properties but unfavorable biological properties. Although bioceramic sealers displayed favorable biological properties, their higher solubility may compromise long-term stability and clinical outcome. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Ready-to-use bioceramic sealers may present favorable cytocompatibility, but their increased solubility highlights the need for cautious interpretation, particularly regarding long-term sealing stability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42706430What 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.