ArticleCureus2024
Comparative Evaluation of Different Obturation Techniques for Root Canal Filling of Permanent Teeth: An In-Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparative evaluation of obturation techniques for C-shaped canals: a network meta-analysis.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Pooled it
- Article
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
introductionAchieving success in root canal (RC) therapy relies on three key components: comprehensive cleaning of the canal, efficient disinfection, and proper filling of the canal space. The present study aimed to compare the efficacy of four obturation techniques: single cone (SC), GuttaCore (GC), cold lateral condensation (LC), and C Point system for RC filling of permanent teeth. MATERIALS AND
methods76 extracted human mandibular first premolars were divided into four groups, with 19 teeth in each group (group A, obturation with SC technique; group B, obturation with GC; group C, obturation with LC; and group D, obturation with C Point system). The samples were marked at 4 mm and 8 mm from the root apex using a marker and calliper, sectioned horizontally, and analyzed under a stereomicroscope at 20x magnification. The mean percentage (%) of gutta-percha (GP)-filled area was compared using a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), followed by the Bonferroni post-hoc test.
resultsThe mean percentage of GP-filled area at a distance of 4 mm from the apex was highest in group B (0.86±0.04; 95% CI: 0.845-0.881), followed by group D (0.70±0.07; 95% CI: 0.664-0.736), group A (0.61±0.05; 95% CI: 0.595-0.642), and least in group C (0.58±0.09; 95% CI: 0.543-0.627), and the difference was statistically significant (p≤0.05). The post-hoc pairwise comparison of groups at 4 mm revealed that there were statistically significant differences between group D and groups B, C, and A (p ≤ 0.001). The mean percentage of the GP area at a distance of 8 mm from the apex was highest in group B (0.81±0.10; 95% CI: 0.761-0.861), followed by group D (0.75±0.07; 95% CI: 0.725-0.792), group A (0.69±0.07; 95% CI: 0.658-0.729), and lowest in group C (0.65±0.10; 95% CI: 0.607-0.709), and this difference was statistically significant (p≤0.05). Post-hoc pairwise comparison of groups at 8 mm revealed that there was a statistically significant difference between groups D and C (p=0.006), whereas no statistically significant differences were noted between groups D and B (p=0.473). Furthermore, no statistically significant differences were noted between groups C and A at 4 mm and 8 mm (p>0.05).
conclusionObturation with the GC system provided the best results in terms of the percentage of GP-filled area at 4 mm. However, at 8 mm from the apical region, both the GC and C Point systems provided similar results.
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.