Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35466220›Full record

ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2022

Clinical and Radiographic Outcome of Non-Surgical Endodontic Treatment Using Calcium Silicate-Based Versus Resin-Based Sealers-A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Clinical Studies.

Viresh Chopra, Graham Davis, Aylin Baysan

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
3.2field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Bioceramic versus conventional endodontic sealers: An umbrella review.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026
    Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
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 2 institutions in 1 country.

Viresh ChopraDepartment of Adult Restorative Dentistry, Oman Dental College, Centre for Oral Bioengineering, Queen Mary University, Mile End Rd. Bethnal Green, London E1 4NS, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-7331-579X
Graham DavisCentre for Oral Bioengineering, Institute of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Rd. Bethnal Green, London E1 4NS, UK.
Aylin BaysanCentre for Oral Bioengineering, Institute of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Rd. Bethnal Green, London E1 4NS, UK.
Queen Mary University of London · GBOman Dental College

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to systematically analyse the effect of calcium silicate-based sealers in comparison to resin-based sealers on clinical and radiographic outcomes of non-surgical endodontic treatment in permanent teeth. Methods: The study was conducted according to the guidelines of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. The literature search was performed using PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Web of Science, DOAJ and OpenGrey with no language restrictions. Two reviewers critically assessed the studies for eligibility. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations (GRADE) was carried out to assess the evidence. Meta-analysis of the pooled data with subgroups was carried out using the RevMan software (p < 0.05). Results: Results from the included studies showed that there were no significant differences between the groups in the 24 h post-obturation pain levels (mean difference (MD), −0.19, 95% CI = −0.43−0.06, p = 0.14, I2 = 0%), but at 48 h (MD, −0.35, 95% CI = −0.64−0.05, p = 0.02, I2 = 0%), a significant difference was observed in favour of calcium silicate sealers. Furthermore, there were no significant differences between the two sealers due to risk of onset or intensity of postoperative pain, need for analgesic and extrusion of the sealer. The heterogeneity assessed using Q test between the included studies was 97% (I2). Conclusions: Within the limitations of this review, the paper shows that calcium silicate-based sealers exhibited optimal performance with similar results to resin-based sealers in terms of average level of post-obturation pain, risk of onset and pain intensity at 24 and 48 h. The observations from the included studies are informative in the clinical evaluation of calcium silicate-based sealers and provide evidence for the conduction of well-designed, controlled randomised clinical trials for a period of at least four years in the future.

Indexed as

bioceramic sealerscalcium-silicate-based sealersextrusionobturationpostoperative painresin-based sealers

Identifiers

PMID35466220
PMCPMC9036224
OpenAlexW4224271397

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.