ReviewClinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry2024
A Comparative Analysis of the Quality of Root Canal Fillings of In Vivo Studies Conducted in Saudi Arabia and Worldwide: A Systematic Review.
Review in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry, 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.
- A Retrospective Study of CBCT-Based Detection of Endodontic Failures and Periapical Lesions in a Romanian Cohort.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Root canal treatment (RCT) is a common procedure practiced daily by dentists worldwide. The current systematic review aimed to evaluate and compare clinical studies on the quality of root canal fillings (RCFs) carried out by dentists with different levels of experience conducted worldwide with those conducted specifically in Saudi Arabia (SA). Materials and Methods: A full literature search was conducted in Clarivate Analytics' Web of Science, Elsevier's Scopus, Embase, CINHAL, and PubMed, without a restriction to studies published before January 2015. Also, a manual search was carried out by checking papers that may have been missed during the electronic search. The following keywords were used: [(quality of root canal filling(s)) OR (quality of root canal obturation)) and dental practitioners as (general dental practitioners; final year students; endodontist; specialist) AND (root canal obturation) OR (endodontic treatment)]. Parameters of the quality of RCFs, such as length, density, and taper, were assessed and counted. Results: A total of 13 worldwide and nine SA studies were included in this review, published between 2015 and 2023. Molars were the most treated teeth, at 42.3% and 40.2% for the worldwide and SA studies, respectively. Cases treated by final year students had the highest percentage, at 60.0% for both study groups. The percentages of acceptable quality, with regard to the length, density, and taper of RCFs, were 70.9%, 77.6%, and 84.3%, and 73.2%, 64.6%, and 67.8% for the worldwide and SA studies, respectively. Conclusion: The overall acceptable quality of RCFs was marginally higher in worldwide studies than in SA studies. Both prevalences can be considered as good, which indicates that the quality of RCFs is moving in the right direction.
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.