Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35448065›Full record

ArticleDentistry journal2022

Comparison of Two Root Canal Filling Techniques: Obturation with Guttacore Carrier Based System and Obturation with Guttaflow2 Fluid Gutta-Percha.

Guido Migliau, Gaspare Palaia, Daniele Pergolini, Tommaso Guglielmelli, Roberta Fascetti, Afrah Sofan, Alessandro Del Vecchio, Umberto Romeo

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Dentistry journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Evaluation of the apical sealing of an eggshell hydroxyapatite-based sealer.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2023
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Evaluation of quality of obturation in 6-9-year-old children.Journal of advanced pharmaceutical technology & research · 2022
    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

8 authors.

Guido MigliauDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Via Caserta 6, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Gaspare PalaiaDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Via Caserta 6, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8509-2255
Daniele PergoliniDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Via Caserta 6, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0001-8885-0496
Tommaso GuglielmelliDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Via Caserta 6, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Roberta FascettiDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Via Caserta 6, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Afrah SofanDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Via Caserta 6, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Alessandro Del VecchioDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Via Caserta 6, 00161 Rome, Italy.
Umberto RomeoDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Via Caserta 6, 00161 Rome, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2439-2187

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe aim of the present study was to compare the quality of the root canal obturation obtained with two different techniques, i.e., thermoplastic gutta-percha introduced through a carrier (GuttaCore) and fluid gutta-percha (GuttaFlow2). MATERIALS AND

methodsThe study included 40 permanent single-rooted human teeth, divided into two groups and obturated with Guttaflow (group G) and with GuttaCore (group T). The teeth were fixed and transversely sectioned, they were examined by scanning electron microscopy. The dentin-cement-gutta-percha interface and the percentage of voids produced by the two techniques were statistically analyzed.

resultsGuttaCore showed a better filling in the apical third of the canal with a percentage of voids equal to 5%. GuttaFlow showed a lower percentage of voids in the middle and coronal thirds of the canal, 1.6% of coronal voids. Statistical analysis showed a statistically significant difference in the percentage of voids in the two groups (GuttaCore and Guttaflow2) in each portion.

conclusionsGuttaFlow2 seems to flow optimally in the middle and coronal third of the canal, with greater difficulty in filling the apical third. Due to the rigidity of the carrier, GuttaCore is able to reach better the most apical portions of the canals, with greater difficulty in creating the three-dimensional seal at the level of the middle third and coronal third.

Indexed as

GuttaCoreGuttaFlowmarginal gapsmicroleakagethree-dimensional seal

Identifiers

PMID35448065
PMCPMC9032128

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.