ReviewDentistry journal2024
Epoxy vs. Calcium Silicate-Based Root Canal Sealers for Different Clinical Scenarios: A Narrative Review.
Review in Dentistry journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Comparative efficacy of novel biomaterials versus traditional materials in the treatment of dental and pulpal diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Pooled it
- In Vitro Comparison of Void Formation Between Calcium Silicate-Based Sealers and AH Plus: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Retreatment of Two Bioceramic Sealers Included Two Different Percentages of Calcium Silicate Using Two Endodontic File Systems: An In Vitro Study.European journal of dentistry · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to review the considerations for choosing a suitable sealer according to various endodontic scenarios. An electronic search of PubMed, Scopus, and the Web of Science was undertaken for the keywords of 'sealer choosing', 'appropriate sealer', 'suitable sealer', 'sealer for clinical scenario', and 'sealer for clinical situations'. However, the literature review revealed a lack of studies with practical clinical recommendations regarding the choice of appropriate endodontic root canal sealers for particular clinical situations of root canal treatment. Therefore, a narrative review was undertaken under the basis of the characteristics of an epoxy resin-based sealer (ERS) versus a calcium silicate-based sealer (CSS). Based on the evidence found through the review, the choice of an appropriate sealer in a variety of clinical scenarios was proposed. An ERS is recommended for one-visit non-vital cases, teeth with periodontal involvement, cracked teeth, and internal root resorption without root perforation. A CSS is recommended for vital or non-vital cases in multiple visits, teeth with internal root resorption with perforation or internal approach for external cervical resorption, teeth with open apices, and teeth with iatrogenic aberrations.
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.