Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28638561›Full record

ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2017

Importance and methodologies of endodontic microleakage studies: A systematic review.

Farnaz Jafari, Sanaz Jafari

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

48 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Farnaz JafariAssistant Professor, Department of Endodontics, Dental School, Tabriz Branch, Islamic Azad University.
Sanaz JafariAssistant Professor, Orthodontics Department, Dentistry Faculty, Ilam University of Medical Science.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionIt is very important to obtain a tight seal in obturated root canal, making it necessary to conduct clinical or laboratory studies on the sealability of endodontic materials. Different methodologies have been historically used to assess microleakage of different endodontic materials. The aim of the present study was to comprehensively review different material testing methods used in microleakage studies, their interpretation and importance in endodontic literature. MATERIAL AND

methodsA systematic search was conducted in Medline, Cochrane, and Web of Science databases. In addition, the reference lists of review articles on the topic were searched. No language restriction was applied. Two independent reviewers screened the article.

resultsMicroleakage is considered the single most important risk factor responsible for apical periodontitis. Dye penetration, dye diffusion, bacterial and endototoxin infiltration, fluid filtration, glucose, caffeine and protein infiltration, radioisotope penetration, animal studies, and electrochemical or 3D evaluation are different methodologies used to assess dental leakage. 91 out of 177 articles in the primary search were included in the study. These methods are very divergent in their viewpoints; that is why their results cannot be easily compared. It is necessary to standardize microleakage detection methods in order to more correctly evaluate the phenomena that are found between the root canal wall and the root canal filling materials.

conclusionsAll the methods are useful if studies are performed strictly with large sample sizes and proper control groups and if the technique can be standardized. Furthermore, more evaluations of the reliability of the methods are strongly recommended.

Identifiers

PMID28638561
PMCPMC5474340

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.