ArticleRestorative dentistry & endodontics2026
Ex vivo comparative analysis of retrievability among four calcium silicate-based sealers for regaining apical patency.
Article in Restorative dentistry & 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: : Efficient retrievability is a key requirement for endodontic sealers. This study evaluated the retrievability of four different calcium silicate-based sealers (CSS). Methods: A total of 153 single-rooted human teeth with straight canals were decoronated to a standardized working length of 12 mm. The canals were negotiated to working length using K files up to size 15/.02, followed by rotary instrumentation up to 35/.04, 2 mm short of working length. The teeth were randomly assigned to five groups: NeoSEALER Flo (NEO; Avalon Biomed), Ceraseal (CS; Meta Biomed), Endosequence BC Sealer (BC; Brasseler USA), AH Plus Bioceramic Sealer (AHB; Dentsply Sirona), and a negative control group. Sealer application and obturation with a 35/.04 gutta-percha cone were performed. After incubation at 37°C in 100% humidity for 7 days, retreatment was performed until apical patency was obtained, with retrievability assessed by regaining apical patency. One-way analysis of variance and Tukey contrast test were used to determine whether there was a significant difference among the four different CSS (p < 0.05). Results: Success rates in regaining apical patency were NEO (79.4%), CS (37.0%), BC (50.0%), and AHB (69.7%). NEO demonstrated the highest retrievability, while CS had the lowest (p < 0.01). Conclusions: The type of CSS used has a considerable impact on retreatment difficulty. Among the tested sealers, Neo- SEALER Flo showed the highest retrievability, making it the most retrievable CSS in terms of retreatment efficacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.