Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35897577›Full record

ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2022

Pilot Evaluation of Sealer-Based Root Canal Obturation Using Epoxy-Resin-Based and Calcium-Silicate-Based Sealers: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Minju Song, Min-Gyu Park, Sang-Won Kwak, Ruben H Kim, Jung-Hong Ha, Hyeon-Cheol Kim

Open access · goldAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.9field-weighted citation impact, top 6% 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Minju SongDepartment of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Dankook University, Cheonan 31116, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-7586-2359
Min-Gyu ParkDepartment of Conservative Dentistry, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan 50612, Korea.
Sang-Won KwakDepartment of Conservative Dentistry, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan 50612, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-7965-977X
Ruben H KimUCLA Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095, USA.
Jung-Hong HaDepartment of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University, Daegu 41566, Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-0469-4324
Hyeon-Cheol KimDepartment of Conservative Dentistry, Dental Research Institute, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Yangsan 50612, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-8032-1194
Pusan National University Dental Hospital · KRDankook University · KRKyungpook National University · KRUniversity of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to assess the short-term clinical effectiveness of sealer-based root canal obturation using calcium-silicate-based sealer (CSBS) and epoxy-resin-based sealer (ERBS). A total of eighty patients (eighty teeth) were enrolled and seventy-two patients (seventy-two teeth) were randomly assigned into four different sealer groups: AH Plus (AH, Dentsply Sirona), ADseal (AD, Meta Biomed), CeraSeal (CS, Meta Biomed), or EndoSeal TCS (ES, Maruchi). At the first visit, root canal treatment was performed using ProTaper. Next, the NiTi file system and passive ultrasonic irritation was applied with 2.5% NaOCl. At the second visit, the teeth were obturated with a sealer-based obturation technique using the assigned sealer. The quality of filling obturation was evaluated with postoperative radiographs in terms of the presence of voids and sealer extrusion. The patients were recalled at 1-week, 1-month, and 3-month intervals, and pain levels were measured using visual analog scales (VAS), and clinical examination performed with percussion and palpation. Radiographs were also taken. The results were statistically compared by using the χ2 test or Fisher exact test. Among the 80 teeth included, 72 teeth received allocated intervention and 71 teeth were included in the analysis (98.6% recall). There was no significant difference among the sealers in void and sealer extrusion (p > 0.05). Postoperative pain was not indicated prominently regardless of the type of sealer. For a 3-month follow-up period, all cases were maintained successfully except for one case from AD. According to the findings, there was no significant difference between CSBS and ERBS in terms of postoperative pain or the healing process, and the variation in filling quality appears to be linked to the properties of each product.

Indexed as

calcium silicateroot canal fillingsealersealer-based obturation

Identifiers

PMID35897577
PMCPMC9332451
OpenAlexW4287218453

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.