ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2025
Single cone and bioceramic sealer in oval canals: Efficiency endodontic obturation.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of three obturation techniques in 3D-printed models of oval canals with standardized prepared morphology: a micro-CT study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- "Obturation capacity of lateral canals using Thermafil® with AH Plus® and a single-cone with AH Plus Bioceramic® sealer: An in vitro study".Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Review
- Randomized Trial of Bioceramic Apical Barrier Methods in Necrotic Immature Incisors: Effects on Pain, Extrusion, and Procedure Duration.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
Background: To compare the volume of voids in oval canals obturated with single cone and bioceramic sealer (SCBC), single cone with lateral condensation or Guttacore by means of micro- computed tomography analysis. To measure the obturation time used for each technique. Material and Methods: 65 uni-radicular teeth with an oval canal were selected. Canals were shaped with Protaper Next and divided into three groups according to the tested obturation technique. The time taken to obturate the canals was recorded. Each specimen was scanned using micro-CT at a voxel resolution of 25 µm. The volume of detected voids and volume of obturated canal was calculated in relation to the total volume. Voids were classified according to their location in the radicular thirds. 2D images obtained were used to calculate the percentage of filled area and percentage of voids. ANOVA test was used to assess significant differences in voids detected in the root thirds and obturation time. Multiple comparisons were made with the Bonferroni test. To analyze the root thirds Kruskal-Wallis was used and for pairwise comparisons Mann-Whitney with Bonferroni modification. Results: The highest percentage of void volume and void area was found in the single cone group with lateral condensation technique. These differences were significant in the apical third ( Conclusions: The three-obturation techniques achieved low void rates. SCBC had the least number of voids and was the fastest obturation technique. Clinical Relevance: In oval canals the quality of obturation carried out with these techniques were suitable and clinically acceptable. SCBC was the most efficient obturation technique.
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.