Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34401555›Full record

ReviewHeliyon2021

Sealing ability and microbial leakage of root-end filling materials: MTA versus epoxy resin: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mario Dioguardi, Mario Alovisi, Diego Sovereto, Giuseppe Troiano, Giancarlo Malagnino, Michele Di Cosola, Angela Pia Cazzolla, Luigi Laino, Lorenzo Lo Muzio

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Heliyon, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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

9 authors.

Mario DioguardiDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Via Rovelli 50, 71122, Foggia, Italy.
Mario AlovisiDepartment of Surgical Sciences, Dental School, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Diego SoveretoDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Via Rovelli 50, 71122, Foggia, Italy.
Giuseppe TroianoDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Via Rovelli 50, 71122, Foggia, Italy.
Giancarlo MalagninoDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Via Rovelli 50, 71122, Foggia, Italy.
Michele Di CosolaDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Via Rovelli 50, 71122, Foggia, Italy.
Angela Pia CazzollaDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Via Rovelli 50, 71122, Foggia, Italy.
Luigi LainoMultidisciplinary Department of Medical-Surgical and Odontostomatological Specialties, University of Campania "Luigi Vanvitelli", 80121, Naples, Italy.
Lorenzo Lo MuzioDepartment of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, University of Foggia, Via Rovelli 50, 71122, Foggia, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe purpose of this systematic review of the literature is to investigate which of the epoxy-based cements and those based on Tricalciumsilicate (MTA, Bioceramic) have the best sealing capacity through the analysis of studies that have provided a survey model in vitro of bacteria leakage. SOURCE: The articles were identified using electronic databases such as PubMed, Scopus, the search was conducted between 8.12.2020 and 31.12.2020 and a last search was conducted on 2.12.2021. STUDY SELECTION: 678 records were identified and after removing the duplicates we obtain 481 records, with the first phase of screening and selection of records we reached 204 and with the application of the inclusion and exclusion criteria we selected 31 articles, only 9 studies made a direct comparison between the two endodontic cement categories and presented data that could be included in the metaanalysis. DATA: The meta-analysis of first outcome shows an odds ratio of 2.70 C.I.(Confidence Interval) [1.54, 4.73], the test for overall effect has a p value = 0.0005 with a heterogeneity index of I 2 of 9%; The second outcome meta-analysis shows an Odds Ratio of 1.50 C.I. (Confidence Interval) [0.92, 2.46] with a p value of 0.10 with an I 2 of 79%.

conclusionthe sealing ability is higher for epoxy resins than for tricalcium silicate-based cements, for observation periods longer than 90 days. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The knowledge of the cement that determines the best sealing ability and resistance to microbial leakage, can be of help for the dentist who has to face clinical situations such as endodontic retreatments whose failure is determined by the persistence of bacteria in the endodontic canals.

Indexed as

EndodonticEpoxy resinMicrobial leakageMTASealing ability

Identifiers

PMID34401555
PMCPMC8353296

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.