Trial reportClinical oral investigations2025
A randomized controlled trial comparing novel and traditional apical barrier techniques in endodontic procedures.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. 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.
- Endodontic Microsurgery as a Primary Treatment for Pulp Canal Obliteration With Apical Periodontitis: Case Reports.Case reports in dentistry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to compare the clinical efficacy of a novel apical barrier technique (N-ABT) and a traditional apical barrier technique (T-ABT). MATERIALS AND
methodsA randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted. Forty-seven patients with 50 teeth meeting the inclusion criteria of large root canals and incompletely developed apical foramina were enrolled. Teeth were randomly assigned to either the N-ABT or T-ABT group in a 1:1 ratio and were followed for 24 months. N-ABT employed 3D printing technology to design personalized pluggers and to calculate the precise volume of barrier material, while T-ABT used a standard commercial plugger without volume control. Randomization was performed using a computer-generated sequence, and the study was conducted in a single-blind manner.
resultsA total of 45 teeth completed the 24-month follow-up (22 in the N-ABT group and 23 in the T-ABT group), with no significant adverse events reported. All cases were considered clinically successful, defined by the absence of symptoms and a reduction in apical radiolucency. Success was further classified as healed (complete disappearance of apical radiolucency) or healing (reduction in apical radiolucency). At the 12-month follow-up, the N-ABT group showed a slightly higher healed rate (22.7% vs. 17.4% in the T-ABT group), and at the 24-month follow-up, a trend toward a higher healed rate was observed (68.2% vs. 47.8% in the T-ABT group), although the differences were not statistically significant. However, N-ABT significantly improved filling efficiency by reducing the number of obturation attempts from 1.41 ± 0.50 to 1 and the filling time from 99.31 ± 25.08 s to 38.78 ± 15.56 s. Additionally, N-ABT significantly increased the no overfilling rate from 8.7 to 40.9%.
conclusionsN-ABT clinically improve clinical outcomes (> 20%) during the observation period, it also demonstrated enhanced filling quality and efficiency and reduced technical sensitivity. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The novel apical barrier technique demonstrated superior filling quality and efficiency compared to the traditional apical barrier technique, reduced technical sensitivity, and showed potential for future automated filling procedures, enhancing clinical applicability. CLINICAL
trial registrationThis study was registered on www.chictr.org.cn (Identifier: ChiCTR2200058635;Trial title: Personalized Root Canal Barrier Technique Using 3D Printing Technology).
Indexed as
Identifiers
40616689What 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.