SynthesisPeerJ2024
Effect of bioceramic-based and resin-based sealers on postoperative discomfort following root canal therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PeerJ, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bioceramic versus conventional endodontic sealers: An umbrella review.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Review
- Use of Bioceramic Sealers in Clinical Practice Among Dentists in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.Cureus · 2026Article
- Evaluating the Efficacy of Bioceramic versus Resin-Based Sealers in Endodontic Treatments: A Comparative Analysis.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025Article
- Randomised Clinical Trial: Effect of AH Plus and Neosealer Flo on Postoperative Pain and Healing of Periapical Lesions.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evidence synthesis of postoperative pain with bioceramic vs. epoxy resin sealers: umbrella review of randomized trials within existing systematic reviews.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2025Review
- Current perspectives on bioceramic sealers in endodontics: A review.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Clinical and radiographic success of single-cone bioceramic obturation versus traditional techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to furnish evidence-based recommendations for the utilization of bioceramic-based and resin-based sealers in clinical endodontics, with a focus on reducing postoperative discomfort. Methods: The investigation's methodology was registered on the International Prospective Database of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO: CRD42022355506) and executed using the 2020 PRISMA protocol. Articles were selected utilizing the PICO technique and applying specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. Articles published between January 2000 and August 2022, PubMed, MEDLINE, and DOAJ were utilized as primary data sources. After the identification of studies, two autonomous reviewers evaluated the titles and abstracts, and data from qualifying studies were extracted. Results: Nine published studies were included in this analysis. The findings indicate that there were no significant differences in the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores between resin-based and bioceramic root canal sealers at intervals of 6 hours, 12 hours, 24 hours, and 48 hours after treatment. Conclusion: The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that after the utilization of bioceramic sealers during root canal therapy, the pain and discomfort levels were not significantly different from those experienced pain after the use of resin-based sealers.
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.