ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2022
Which is the superior retrograde filling material? We don't know!
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical question Is Biodentine better than MTA as a root-end filling material?Data sources Cochrane, PubMed-Medline and Scopus databases were searched independently by two authors. In addition, a manual search was performed in high-quality endodontic journals.Data extraction and synthesis The name of the authors, the year of publication, sample size, the measurement method used, follow-up time for each of the three and main outcomes (bond strength, marginal gap and sealing ability) were extracted in the form of tables and evidence presented. The level of scientific evidence was assessed using Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT).Quality of included studies Not performed.Results A total of 13 publications were included and all of them were in vitro studies. With regards to bond strength, two of four studies indicated Biodentine performed better than MTA while the other two showed no significant difference. Microleakage studies and sealing ability indicated no clear superiority of one over the other.Conclusions Lack of scientific evidence regarding the superiority of tricalcium silicate over mineral trioxide aggregate as a root-end filling material in periapical surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35750725What 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.