ArticleBMC oral health2025
Micro-CT evaluation of MTA compaction techniques in 3D-printed teeth with simulated perforating internal root resorption: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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.
- Comparison of compaction techniques for filling isthmuses using Biodentine in mandibular molars.BMC oral health · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the effectiveness of manual compaction, indirect ultrasonic activation, and a novel sonic-activated endomotor in reducing voids during MTA placement in perforated internal root resorption cavities (IRR).
methodsThirty standardized 3D-printed resin teeth with simulated perforating IRR cavities (4 mm in diameter, located 4 mm from the apex, with a 2 mm buccal perforation) were fabricated. The samples were randomly divided into 3 groups: Manual compaction: MTA was placed and compacted using hand pluggers. Ultrasonic activation: MTA was placed and indirectly activated with an ultrasonic device at 30% power for 3 cycles of 10 s each. Sonic-activated endomotor: MTA was placed and compacted using the 812 MT endomotor. Specimens were stored at 37 °C in 100% humidity for 1-week. Micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) was used to evaluate the void volume. Intergroup comparisons were conducted using the Kruskal–Wallis test at a 5% significance level.
resultsThe mean void volumes were 6.49 mm³ in the manual compaction group, 2.61 mm³ in the ultrasonic activation group, and 3.89 mm³ in sonic-activated endomotor group. Although the manual compaction group exhibited the highest void volume, the differences among the groups were not statistically significant (P > 0.05).
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this in vitro study, all three MTA compaction techniques demonstrated comparable outcomes in the compaction of MTA in perforating IRR cavities. These findings suggest that, in such cases, the choice of technique may be guided by operator preference and clinical circumstances rather than expected differences in void reduction.
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.