ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
Comparative Evaluation of Volume and Homogeneity of Obturation with Four Different Obturation Systems Using Micro-Computed Tomography: 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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Single-Cone vs. Carrier-Based Root Canal Obturation with a Calcium-Silicate-Based Sealer: An In Vitro µ-CT Analysis.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate and compare volume and homogeneity of the three different root canal obturation systems. Materials and Methods: Single-rooted premolar (n = 24) teeth samples were selected, and crowns were removed for standardization. Four groups are divided randomly as (n = 6), namely: For group I (single-cone gutta-percha obturation), group II (Beefill 2 in 1 obturation), group III (GuttaCore obturation), group IV (GuttaFlow bioseal obturation) and the root canal were subjected to prepare till X3 (protaper next) and subjected to micro-CT imaging. After completion of obturation, the image was taken by using micro-CT imaging. This is to evaluate the volume of filled obturation material in the canal space and the voided area sections, viz. the apical, middle, coronal, and third sections. Results: Group III (GuttaCore obturation) showed the least significant mean of the difference in relation to the volume of the canal obturation (81.148). The least mean significant difference in area of voids in the canal region for apical (0.00133), middle (0.00233), and coronal thirds (0.00533). The most statistically significant difference is in the apical and middle thirds root canal space. Conclusion: All the experimental groups showed significant differences in volume and voids in the obturation at three different levels, and the GuttaCore obturation systems occupied more of the volume with less voids in the prepared root canal space.
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.