ArticleJournal of dental sciences2025
In vitro comparison of fracture strength of maxillary incisors with the simulated external root resorption cavities repaired with BioMTA or Biodentine.
Article in Journal of dental sciences, 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.
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/purpose: Treatment of external root resorption is performed by root canal treatment and repair of the resorptive area with biocompatible materials. Our study aimed to compare the fracture strengths of teeth with simulated external resorption repaired with BioMTA or Biodentine. Materials and methods: Sixty extracted human maxillary incisors were used in the study. The root canals were instrumented with Ni-Ti rotary instruments and obturated with single cone technique using corresponding gutta-percha cone and root canal sealer. The teeth were embedded in acrylic blocks. Fifteen of them served as negative control group. Simulated external resorption cavities were opened with burs on the approximal surfaces of the remaining teeth. Fifteen of them were assigned randomly as positive control group. The remaining teeth were randomly divided into two groups, the cavities were filled with BioMTA in one group and with Biodentine in the other group and then subjected to fracture strength test. The force at which fracture occurred was evaluated by analysis of variance at 0.05 significance level. Results: Biodentine showed significantly higher fracture strength than BioMTA. There was no difference between the negative control group and the Biodentine and BioMTA group. The positive control group showed significantly lower values than the other groups. Conclusion: Both Biodentine and BioMTA may be used to repair external root resorption, while Biodentine is more durable.
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.