Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41116790›Full record

ArticlePeerJ2025

Finite element analysis of root canal filling materials in retained primary molars with congenital tooth agenesis.

Gizem Karagöz Doğan, Yelda Polat Yavuz, Büşra Karaağaç Eskibağlar

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PeerJ, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

3 authors.

Gizem Karagöz DoğanFaculty of Dentistry, Iğdır University, Iğdır, Turkey.
Yelda Polat YavuzFaculty of Dentistry, Dicle University, Diyarbakır, Turkey.
Büşra Karaağaç EskibağlarFaculty of Dentistry, Fırat University, Elazığ, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The selection of an appropriate filling material in root canal treatments of primary molars is crucial for long-term success. However, evaluating the biomechanical behavior of these materials under Methods: A mandibular second primary molar extracted for orthodontic reasons was used in the study. The tooth was scanned using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) to obtain original DICOM data, which were imported into Geomagic + SpaceClaim 2023R2 to create a solid model. A total force of 330 N was applied to three points on the occlusal surface of each model. The analysis was conducted using Ansys mesh and evaluated with Hyperview 2024. Maximum von Mises (vM) stress values were used to assess stress distribution. Results: The highest vM stress in the remaining dentin was observed in the gutta-percha (GP) + AH Plus model (148.5 MPa), followed by mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) (127.24 MPa), Biodentine (125.65 MPa), and GP + BioRoot RCS (118.37 MPa). Stress concentrations were primarily located in the pericervical region. The GP + AH Plus group showed the highest stress, while the GP + BioRoot RCS group showed the lowest. Among contemporary filling materials, GP + BioRoot RCS demonstrated the lowest dentin stress, suggesting it may offer better root fracture resistance. However, generalizing these findings is difficult due to limited data on primary teeth in the literature. Conclusion: The study suggests that GP + BioRoot RCS may be a more promising filling material for enhancing root fracture resistance in primary molars. Further research is needed to validate these findings in clinical settings.

Indexed as

MolarRoot Canal Filling MaterialsTooth, DeciduousDental Stress AnalysisFinite Element AnalysisHumansX-Ray MicrotomographyRoot Canal Filling MaterialsBiodentineFinite element analysisMineral trioxide aggregatePrimary teeth

Identifiers

PMID41116790
PMCPMC12535739

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.