ArticleBMC oral health2024
Clinical outcome of root canal obturation using different based sealers: a retrospective cohort study.
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 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.
- 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to assess and compare the performance of root canal treatment obturated either with calcium silicate-based or epoxy resin-based root canal sealers on retreatment cases with periapical lesions.
methodsPatients' radiographic data and clinical records were obtained retrospectively from the computerized patient record system. A total of 44 teeth, 28 teeth treated with calcium silicate-based sealer and 16 teeth treated with epoxy resin-based sealer, were included in the study. The mean follow-up period was 11.9 months for calcium silicate-based sealer and 23.6 months for epoxy resin based sealer groups. The outcome was evaluated based on radiographic findings and clinical records of the patients. Chi-square test and Fisher's Exact test were used to examine the differences between categorical variables. An independent samples t-test was used to compare the initial and final PAI differences based on sealer type.
resultsThe success rate was 100% for calcium silicate-based sealer and 93.75% for epoxy resin-based sealer. Calcium silicate-based sealer showed a faster healing capacity than epoxy resin-based sealer.
conclusionsBoth sealers are viable options for retreatment cases, but calcium silicate-based sealer has a faster healing potential.
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.