Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30202163›Full record

ReviewThe Saudi dental journal2018

The use of Bioceramics as root-end filling materials in periradicular surgery: A literature review.

Sumaya M Abusrewil, William McLean, J Alun Scott

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Saudi dental journal, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 26 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
26citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
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

26 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 60 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Observational
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Modern methods and materials used to treat root perforation: effectiveness comparison.Journal of materials science. Materials in medicine · 2024
    Article
  15. Article
  16. AnBiomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2024
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Bioceramics in Endodontics: Updates and Future Perspectives.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Review
  19. In vivo cytotoxicity analysis of bioceramic root canal sealers on zebrafish embryo.Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects · 2023
    Article
  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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sumaya M AbusrewilGlasgow Dental School, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Nursing, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, 378 Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow G2 3JZ, United Kingdom.
William McLeanGlasgow Dental School, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Nursing, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, 378 Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow G2 3JZ, United Kingdom.
J Alun ScottGlasgow Dental School, School of Medicine, Dentistry and Nursing, College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences, University of Glasgow, 378 Sauchiehall Street, Glasgow G2 3JZ, United Kingdom.
University of Glasgow · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionPeriradicular surgery involves the placement of a root-end filling following root-end resection, to provide an apical seal to the root canal system. Historically several materials have been used in order to achieve this seal. Recently a class of materials known as Bioceramics have been adopted. The aim of this article is to provide a review of the outcomes of periradicular surgery when Bioceramic root-end filling materials are used on human permanent teeth in comparison to "traditional" materials. METHODS &

resultsAn electronic literature search was performed in the databases of Web of Science, PubMed and Google Scholar, between 2006 and 2017, to collect clinical studies where Bioceramic materials were utilised as retrograde filling materials, and to compare such materials with traditional materials. In this search, 1 systematic review and 14 clinical studies were identified. Of these, 8 reported the success rates of retrograde Bioceramics, and 6 compared treatment outcomes of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and traditional cements when used as root-end filling materials.

conclusionBioceramic root-end filling materials are shown to have success rates of 86.4-95.6% (over 1-5 years). Bioceramics has significantly higher success rates than amalgam, but they were statistically similar to intermediate restorative material (IRM) and Super ethoxybenzoic acid (Super EBA) when used as retrograde filling materials in apical surgery. However, it seems that the high success rates were not solely attributable to the type of the root-end filling materials. The surgical/microsurgical techniques and tooth prognostic factors may significantly affect treatment outcome.

Indexed as

Calcium silicate cementMicrosurgical endodonticsMineral trioxide aggregatePeriradicular surgeryRoot-end filling

Identifiers

PMID30202163
PMCPMC6128316
OpenAlexW2883147085

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.