ArticleContemporary clinical dentistry
Outcome Assessment of Three Different Methods of Root-end Preparation and Filling Materials in Endodontic Surgery: A Comparative Clinical Prospective Study.
Article in Contemporary clinical dentistry. 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.
- Narrative Review of Endodontic Biomaterials.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Comparative Sealing Ability of Different Materials for Repair of Iatrogenic Perforations: An In Vitro Study.International 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The technique of endodontic surgery had evolved tremendously in the recent years with introduction of new instruments and materials. Aim: This study aims to compare the clinical outcome of endodontic microsurgery using three different techniques with three different root-end filling materials for 16 months. Materials and Methods: A total of 45 maxillary incisors indicated for root-end surgery were selected for the study. They were enrolled into three groups, i.e. Group A (traditional [TRS]/heat burnished gutta-percha), Group B (concave [CON]/Retroplast), and Group C (cavity/DiaRoot BioAggregate), of 15 teeth each. The clinical and radiographic outcome was recorded at 1, 6, 12, and 16 months using various criteria. Statistical Analysis: The data were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance and Tukey's Results: All patients had uneventful healing at the final follow-up. Radiological intratime analysis concluded a highly high significant ( Conclusions: There was no significant difference in the clinical outcome after endodontic surgery when comparing TRS/heat burnished gutta-percha, CON/Retroplast, and cavity/DiaRoot BioAggregate techniques at 16 months. However, cavity/DiaRoot BioAggregate resulted in significantly rapid and predictable healing at 12 months.
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.