ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
Reinforcement of Teeth Having Reenacted Perforating Internal Resorption Cavities After Repair Using Different Calcium Silicate-based Cements and Backfilling Materials: An
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the fracture resistance (FR) of the teeth having reenacted perforating internal resorption cavities repaired by distinctive calcium silicate-based cements (CSCs) specifically: Endocem MTA, Biodentine, NeoMTA Plus, and backfilling materials. Ninety-six freshly extracted human mandibular premolar teeth were selected. Twelve roots were used as the negative control group. Rotary files were used to complete the final irrigation and root canal preparation on the remaining teeth. Following that, burs were used to make standardized internal resorption chambers in the middle part of the roots. Twelve of these samples were used as positive control samples. The remaining 72 root canals were obturated in the apical 4 mm using a single-cone approach, and they were separated into 6 groups based on the CSCs used to fill voids and the materials used as backfilling. Group 1: Endocem MTA (resorption) + Endocem MTA (coronal), Group 2: Endocem MTA (resorption) + Gutta-percha/sealer (coronal), Group 3: Biodentine (resorption) + Biodentine (coronal), Group 4: Biodentine (resorption) + Gutta-percha/sealer (coronal), Group 5: NeoMTA Plus (resorption) + NeoMTA Plus (coronal), and Group 6: NeoMTA Plus (resorption) + Gutta-percha/sealer (coronal). Specimens were inserted in acrylic resin and then subjected to fracture testing. Fracture strength tests were performed using a Universal Testing Machine. The force was employed vertically with a consistent speed of 1 mm/minute. The results were analyzed with Variance and Bonferrini tests at
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.