Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40948576›Full record

ReviewJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research

Clinical and radiographic success of single-cone bioceramic obturation versus traditional techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Firas Elmsmari, Yousef Elsayed, Abdelrahman Aboubakr, Mahdi Kaafarani, Osama Nour, Ajinkya M Pawar

Registry-linked trialAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07600099 (Comparative Evaluation of Obturation Using Bioceramic Nano-coated Gutta-percha and Bioceramic-based Sealer Versus Gutta-percha and Resin-based Sealer on Postoperative Pain and Swelling), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT07600099 nanot yet recruitingnot on this map

Comparative Evaluation of Obturation Using Bioceramic Nano-coated Gutta-percha and Bioceramic-based Sealer Versus Gutta-percha and Resin-based Sealer on Postoperative Pain and Swelling: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

TypeinterventionalSponsorCairo UniversityRan2026 to 2027Enrolled30ConditionsDental Pain, Facial SwellingArmsResin sealer with conventional gutta percha., Bioceramic sealer with bioceramic gutta-percha.
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Bioceramic versus conventional endodontic sealers: An umbrella review.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026
    Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Firas ElmsmariDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Dentistry, Ajman University, University Street Al Jerf 1, Ajman, 346, United Arab Emirates.
Yousef ElsayedDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Dentistry, Ajman University, University Street Al Jerf 1, Ajman, 346, United Arab Emirates.
Abdelrahman AboubakrDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Dentistry, Ajman University, University Street Al Jerf 1, Ajman, 346, United Arab Emirates.
Mahdi KaafaraniDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Dentistry, Ajman University, University Street Al Jerf 1, Ajman, 346, United Arab Emirates.
Osama NourDepartment of Clinical Sciences, College of Dentistry, Ajman University, University Street Al Jerf 1, Ajman, 346, United Arab Emirates.
Ajinkya M PawarDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Nair Hospital Dental College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Bioceramic sealers, known for their bioactivity and biocompatibility, offer a promising alternative to traditional resin-based sealers. However, clinical evaluations are lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the clinical and radiographic outcomes of bioceramic single-cone obturation with those of conventional treatment and sealers. Methods: We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, ScienceDirect, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to March 2024. Our review protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) ( Results: Three RCTs involving 259 participants met inclusion criteria. The success rates for the bioceramic group were 88.7 %, 87.1 %, and 92.0 % at 6, 12, and 18 months, respectively, while those for the controls were 76.4 %, 76.4 %, and 90.7 %, respectively. Three studies reported higher success rates in the bioceramic groups than in the controls, although between-group differences were not statistically significant (overall OR range 1.12-2.09; p > 0.05). We observed moderate heterogeneity at the early follow-ups and negligible heterogeneity at the 18-month follow-ups. Conclusion: Single-cone obturation with bioceramic sealers may result in small but clinically relevant advantages; however, more high-quality RCTs with longer-term follow-up are needed.

Indexed as

Bioceramic sealersClinical outcomeFlare-upRadiographic outcomesSingle cone obturation

Identifiers

PMID40948576
PMCPMC12424407

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

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.