Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35750725›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2022

Which is the superior retrograde filling material? We don't know!

Parthasarathy Madurantakam

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Parthasarathy MadurantakamVirginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, USA. madurantakap@vcu.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Root Canal Filling MaterialsHumansRoot Canal Filling Materials

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.