ArticleBiomaterial investigations in dentistry2025
Clinical applications and perceptions of bioceramics in endodontics: a cross-sectional survey.
Article in Biomaterial investigations in dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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: Bioceramic materials have emerged as a significant advancement in endodontics, offering excellent biocompatibility, sealing ability, and bioactivity.Their use has expanded in recent years, particularly for pulp capping, perforation repair, and regenerative procedures. Objectives: This study aimed to assess the knowledge of bioceramics among private practice dentists, evaluate the frequency of use of sealing and filling bioceramics, and examine the applied clinical protocols as well as potential shortcomings. Materials and methods: This cross-sectional study was conducted according to Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines, based on an epidemiological Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices (KAP) survey. It was carried out among Tunisian private practice dentists. Data were processed and analyzed using Excel 2007 and Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) Statistics 21.0. The sample size was calculated using the standard formula for estimating a proportion in a cross-sectional study, and participants were randomly selected. Participation was voluntary, anonymous, and confidential. Results: A total of 200 dentists participated. Only 54.5% reported using sealing bioceramics, with 35.05% using them in all cases, 19.94% for periapical lesions, and 16.92% for root perforations. Approximately half of the dentists (53.01%) observed faster healing when using these sealers. Regarding filling bioceramics, 67.5% of participants used them, with a preference for MTA. These materials were indicated for various clinical situations, including repair of floor perforations, pulp capping, apexification of immature permanent teeth, and repair of root perforations. However, 45.61% of participants reported treatment failures when using these bioceramics, with failure to adhere to one of the endodontic treatment steps identified as the primary cause. Conclusion: This study concluded that younger dentists tend to use bioceramics more frequently, filling bioceramics are better known than sealing ones, and most participants are familiar with the clinical indications of these materials. It is essential to provide further guidance and recommendations on the clinical application of bioceramics to optimize treatment outcomes.
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.