ArticleRestorative dentistry & endodontics2020
Micro-computed tomographic evaluation of the flow and filling ability of endodontic materials using different test models.
Article in Restorative dentistry & endodontics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bioceramics in Endodontics: Limitations and Future Innovations-A Review.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- Physical, chemical and biological properties of MTA Angelus and novel AGM MTA: an in vitro analysis.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Microscopic evaluation of microleakage in retrograde filling materials using conventional and ultrasonic techniques.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Evaluation of the physical properties of bromelain-modified biodentine for direct pulp capping.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- How do imaging protocols affect the assessment of root-end fillings?Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2022Article
- Micro-computed tomography in preventive and restorative dental research: A review.Imaging science in dentistry · 2021Review
- A micro-computed tomographic study using a novel test model to assess the filling ability and volumetric changes of bioceramic root repair materials.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study compared the flow and filling of several retrograde filling materials using new different test models. MATERIALS AND
methodsGlass plates were manufactured with a central cavity and 4 grooves in the horizontal and vertical directions. Grooves with the dimensions used in the previous study (1 × 1 × 2 mm; length, width, and height respectively) were compared with grooves measuring 1 × 1 × 1 and 1 × 2 × 1 mm. Biodentine, intermediate restorative material (IRM), and mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) were evaluated. Each material was placed in the central cavity, and then another glass plate and a metal weight were placed over the cement. The glass plate/material set was scanned using micro-computed tomography. Flow was calculated by linear measurements in the grooves. Central filling was calculated in the central cavity (mm
resultsBiodentine presented the least flow and better filling than IRM when evaluated in the 1 × 1 × 2 model. In a comparison of the test models, MTA had the most flow in the 1 × 1 × 2 model. All materials had lower lateral filling when the 1 × 1 × 2 model was used.
conclusionsFlow and filling were affected by the size of the test models. Higher grooves and materials with greater flow resulted in lower filling capacity. The test model measuring 1 × 1 × 2 mm showed a better ability to differentiate among the materials.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.