Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34300930›Full record

ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2021

Complete Obturation-Cold Lateral Condensation vs. Thermoplastic Techniques: A Systematic Review of Micro-CT Studies.

Shilpa Bhandi, Mohammed Mashyakhy, Abdulaziz S Abumelha, Mazen F Alkahtany, Mohamed Jamal, Hitesh Chohan, A Thirumal Raj, Luca Testarelli, Rodolfo Reda, Shankargouda Patil

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
14.2field-weighted citation impact, top 1% 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 90 citations in OpenAlex.

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

10 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Shilpa BhandiDepartment of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan 45412, Saudi Arabia.
Mohammed MashyakhyDepartment of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan 45412, Saudi Arabia.
Abdulaziz S AbumelhaDepartment of Restorative Dental Science, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia.
Mazen F AlkahtanyDepartment of Restorative Dental Science, Division of Endodontics, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh 11362, Saudi Arabia.
Mohamed JamalDepartment of Endodontics, Hamdan Bin Mohamed College of Dental Medicine, Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Dubai Health Care City, Dubai 505055, United Arab Emirates.ORCID 0000-0001-5865-7943
Hitesh ChohanDepartment of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan 45412, Saudi Arabia.
A Thirumal RajDepartment of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Sri Venkateswara Dental College and Hospital, Chennai 600130, India.ORCID 0000-0002-1079-1024
Luca TestarelliDepartment of Oral and Maxillo Facial Sciences, University of Rome La Sapienza, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-3904-3000
Rodolfo RedaDepartment of Oral and Maxillo Facial Sciences, University of Rome La Sapienza, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-1532-6524
Shankargouda PatilDepartment of Maxillofacial Surgery and Diagnostic Sciences, Division of Oral Pathology, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0001-7246-5497
Jazan University · SASapienza University of Rome · ITKing Khalid University · SAKing Saud University · SAMohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences · AESri Venkateswara Medical College and Ruia Hospital · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To prevent re-infection and provide a hermetic seal of the root canal system, an endodontist must aim to produce a void-free obturation. This review aimed to compare the completeness of root canal obturation between the two most prevalent methods-cold lateral condensation and warm gutta-percha techniques-using micro-CT (PROSPERO reg no. 249815). MATERIALS AND

methodsA search of Scopus, Embase, PubMed (Medline via PubMed), and Web of Science databases was done without any time restriction according to the PRISMA protocol. Articles that compared both techniques and were published in English were included. Data was extracted and the risk of bias was assessed using an adapted tool based on previous studies.

resultsA total of 141 studies were identified by the search. Following the screening and selection of articles, 9 studies were included for review. Data was extracted manually and tabulated. Most studies had a moderate risk of bias. None determined operator skill in both methods before comparison. The data extracted from the included studies suggests that both techniques produce voids in the obturation. The thermoplasticized gutta-percha techniques may result in fewer voids compared to cold lateral condensation.

conclusionConsidering the limitations of the included studies, it was concluded that neither technique could completely obturate the root canal. Thermoplasticized gutta-percha techniques showed better outcomes despite a possible learning bias in favor of cold lateral condensation. Establishing operator skills before comparison may help reduce this bias.

Indexed as

cold lateral condensationmicro-CTobturationroot canal fillingthermoplasticized gutta-percha

Identifiers

PMID34300930
PMCPMC8304925
OpenAlexW3184131552

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.