Evaluation of the biological and physicochemical properties of calcium silicate‐based and epoxy resin‐based root canal sealers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Biocompatibility, dimensional stability, radiopacity, flow, and low solubility are the characteristics of an ideal endodontic sealer. This study evaluated and compared in vivo and in vitro biological and physicochemical properties of calcium silicate-based sealers: Sealer Plus BC (BC), MTA Fillapex (MF); and resin-based sealers: AH Plus (AHP) and Sealer Plus (SP). Apical papilla cells were exposed to sealer extracts and subjected to MTT, SRB, scratch, alkaline phosphatase enzyme activity (ALP) and Alizarin red staining (ALZ) assays. Sealers were histologically evaluated in connective tissue of Wistar rats in different periods. Radiopacity, film thickness, flow, setting time, pH and element analyses were investigated. BC had better results compared to AHP and MF at hour 72 for MTT assay (p < .05), and the highest cell viability under SRB (p < .05). All sealers presented ALP activity. BC presented the highest mineralized deposition under ALZ (p < .05). BC and MF promoted wound healing. All sealers induced an initial inflammation reaction that decreased over time. Eosinophils were observed at day 7 in MF (p < .05). Despite MF did not present final setting time, the sealers properties were in accordance to ISO 6876/2012 and ASTM C266-08. All sealers presented cell viability and biocompatibility. BC presented higher pH values and bioactivity. The materials tested showed physico-chemical properties in accordance with standards, except for MF setting time.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".