ArticleBMC oral health2023
Comparison of three different biomaterials used in in vitro molar apexification models.
Article in BMC oral health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Application of Biodentine for Apexification of Immature Teeth of Children: A Scoping Review.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Microleakage of Orthograde Root-Filling Materials in Immature Permanent Teeth: An In Vitro Study.International journal of biomaterials · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesNew biomaterials had some advantages such as mixing and easier application as compared to traditional MTA in single step apexification method. This study aimed to compare the three biomaterials used in the apexification treatment of immature molar teeth in terms of the time spent, the quality of the canal filling and the number of x-rays taken to complete the process.
methodsThe root canals of the extracted thirty molar teeth were shaped with rotary tools. To obtain the apexification model, ProTaper F3 was used retrograde. The teeth were randomly assigned into three groups based on the material used to seal the apex; Group 1: Pro Root MTA, Group 2: MTA Flow, Group 3: Biodentine. The amounts of the filling, the number of radiographs taken until treatment completion and the treatment duration were recorded. Then teeth were fixed for micro computed tomography imaging for quality evaluation of canal filling.
resultsBiodentine was superior to the other filling materials according to time. MTA Flow provided greater filling volume than the other filling materials in the rank comparison for the mesiobuccal canals. MTA Flow had greater filling volume than ProRoot MTA in the palatinal/distal canals(p = 0.039). Biodentine had greater filling volume more than MTA Flow in the mesiolingual/distobuccal canals (p = 0.049).
conclusionsMTA Flow was found as a suitable biomaterial according to the treatment time and quality of root canal fillings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.