ArticleBMC oral health2024
Clinical utility index for root canal sealers.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Physical properties comparison of four bioceramic vs. epoxy resin-based root canal sealers: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Effect of indirect ultrasonic activation on the root canal obturation with premixed calcium silicate cement: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- 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
backgroundEffective endodontic treatment requires the use of a root canal sealer with optimal properties to ensure a hermetic seal, prevent reinfection, and promote healing. Despite the availability of various sealers, a standardized evaluation system still needs to be improved.
objectivesTo develop a Clinical Utility Index (CUI) that systematically evaluates and ranks root canal sealers based on their sealing ability, antimicrobial efficacy, flow rate, and solubility.
methodsThe CUI was developed through a structured process involving expert identification, panel discussions, and the establishment of scoring criteria. Five sealers were evaluated (Sealers A, B, C, D, and E). Mean values for the core properties were calculated, and sealers were ranked accordingly. The total CUI for each sealer was computed based on the assigned scores for each property.
resultsSealer B achieved the highest CUI at 95%, demonstrating superior performance across all core properties. Sealer C followed with a CUI of 80%, while Sealer A ranked third with 60%. Sealers D and E showed the lowest performance, with CUIs of 30% and 35%, respectively, highlighting deficiencies in multiple properties. DISCUSSION: The CUI provides a comprehensive evaluation framework for root canal sealers, facilitating informed decision-making by practitioners. Sealer B's high CUI underscores the importance of balancing sealing ability, antimicrobial effect, flow rate, and solubility. The results align with existing literature emphasizing the critical role of these properties in endodontic success.
conclusionThe CUI offers a robust and balanced method for evaluating root canal sealers, aiding in selecting the most suitable sealer based on empirical data. Future research should refine the index and validate its applicability in diverse clinical scenarios to enhance endodontic treatment outcomes.
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.