ArticleCureus2023
Comparison of the Microleakages of Four Root-End Filling Materials: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Marginal leakage of retrograde filling materials using stereomicroscope: An in vitro study.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Effect of ultrasonic-assisted iRoot SP single-cone technique on root canal filling efficacy: an in vitro study.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
- Microscopic evaluation of microleakage in retrograde filling materials using conventional and ultrasonic techniques.Bioinformation · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWhen a nonsurgical endodontic treatment is ineffective, surgery is necessary. This entails putting a retrofilling to seal the tooth's apex. Exposing the lesion, performing a curettage, exposing the root apex, resecting it, preparing the root end, and lastly filling the cavity with the proper material are all steps in endodontic surgery. Thus, the aim of this study is to compare the apical microleakage of four root-end filling materials in cavities prepared using ultrasonic retro tip in in vitro conditions. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn in vitro study was conducted on 60 extracted single-rooted teeth and was cut at the cementoenamel junction (CEJ). They were biomechanically prepared and obturated. Apical 3 mm root-end resection was done using a diamond disc. Root-end cavities were made using an ultrasonic retro tip. Teeth were separated into four groups and filled with SuperEBA
resultsTotalFill BC RRM and Biodentine showed the least apical microleakage (p <0.05). Group 1 samples had the highest mean microleakage, followed by Group 2, Group 3, and Group 4 samples.
conclusionAll of the sample groups showed some evidence of microleakage, but not all of the samples showed leaking. SuperEBA (Group 1) demonstrated the highest microleakage when compared to the other groups.
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.