ReviewBiomaterial investigations in dentistry2024
Root-filling materials for endodontic surgery: biological and clinical aspects.
Review in Biomaterial investigations in dentistry, 2024. 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.
- Intentional Replantation - Small procedure, big benefits: A report of five cases.Pakistan journal of medical sciences · 2026Article
- Narrative Review of Endodontic Biomaterials.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The placement of root filling materials aims to prevent the occurrence of post-treatment apical periodontitis following completion of endodontic treatment. Materials should possess properties that will not permit bacterial invasion and infection, namely excellent sealing ability and/or antibacterial properties. In root-end filling procedures or repair of root perforations, the root filling materials are placed in a particularly challenging clinical environment, as they interface with a relatively large area with the periradicular tissues. The biological properties of these materials are therefore of significant importance. The current review discusses the most widely used materials for endodontic surgery (i.e., root-end filling and perforation repair), with particular focus on their biological characteristics, namely antibacterial properties and interactions with host tissue cells, together with clinical studies. Properties of amalgam, glass ionomer cements (GICs), resin systems, zinc oxide eugenol-based cements and hydraulic calcium silicate cements (HCSCs), together with representative and well-researched commercial materials in the context of their use in endodontic surgery are presented. While the use of HCSCs seems to offer several biological advantages, together with addressing issues with the initial formulation in the most recent versions, materials with different chemical compositions, such as zinc oxide eugenol-based cements, are still in use and appear to provide similar clinical success rates to HCSCs. Thus, the significance of the currently available materials on clinical outcomes remains unclear.
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.