ArticleOdontology2024
Impact of low-fusion gutta-percha cones used in variations of the continuous wave condensation technique with filling sealers based on bioceramic compounds on the quality of root canal filling.
Article in Odontology, 2024. 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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- How hot is too hot? A bioheat fea of warm obturation in simulated internal resorption with and without periodontal blood flow.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Root Canal Filling of Teeth with Open Apex Using Different Techniques, Low-Temperature Gutta-Percha Points, and Bioceramic Sealers.Brazilian dental journal · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
To evaluate the impact on the quality of filling with of low-fusion and conventional gutta-percha cones. Thirty-six maxillary canines were prepared and divided into three groups: I-conventional cone with Downpack at 200 °C at 4 mm from the WL; II-low-fusion cone with Downpack at 100 °C up to 4 mm from the WL; III-low-fusion cone with Downpack at 100 °C up to 7 mm from the WL. Temperature variations were measured in thirds on the external surface of the root. The bond strength was evaluated using the push-out test. The adhesive interface was analyzed by scanning electron microscopy. The bond strength and the temperature variation data were analyzed using analysis of variance and the failure type using the chi-square test. The low-fusion cone group with 7 mm Downpack showed higher bond strength (4.2 ± 2.7) compared with conventional cones (2.8 ± 1.6) and low-fusion cones with 4 mm Downpack (2.9 ± 1.6) (p < 0.05), with occurrence of a higher number of adhesive failures to the filling material and mixed failures. Relative to temperature variation, there was less temperature change in the apical third, in the low-fusion cone with Downpack 7 mm (1.0 ± 1.0) (p < 0.05). The use of low-fusion cones allowed the continuous wave condensation technique to be performed at a lower depth of Downpack at 100 °C at 7 mm, with less heating in the apical third, without compromising the quality of filling. Using gutta-percha cones with low fusion, which permits a lower condensation temperature and reduced Downpack depth, maintains the quality of filling, in order to minimize possible damage to the periapical tissues.
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.