SynthesisBMC oral health2026
Sealing ability and marginal adaptation of premixed versus manually mixed bioceramic root-end filling materials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC oral health, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPremixed bioceramic root-end filling materials have been introduced as an alternative to manually mixed formulations, with the aim of improving handling properties and reducing operator-dependent variability. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the sealing ability and marginal adaptation of premixed versus manually mixed bioceramic materials used for root-end filling.
methodsThis review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Six electronic databases and relevant grey literature sources were systematically searched. Laboratory-based studies comparing premixed and manually mixed bioceramic root-end filling materials were included. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed using standardized mean differences (SMDs) or mean differences (MDs), each reported with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).
resultsTwelve studies met the inclusion criteria. Eight studies contributed data to the sealing ability meta-analysis, and six studies contributed to the marginal adaptation meta-analysis. No statistically significant difference in sealing ability was observed between premixed and manually mixed materials (SMD = - 0.12; 95% CI: -0.46 to 0.22; p = 0.48; I² = 58%). In contrast, premixed bioceramic materials demonstrated significantly superior marginal adaptation, reflected by smaller interfacial gaps (MD = - 1.84 μm; 95% CI: -3.20 to - 0.49; p = 0.007; I² = 62%). Heterogeneity across outcomes ranged from moderate to substantial.
conclusionsWithin the limitations of laboratory-based evidence, premixed bioceramic root-end filling materials exhibit superior marginal adaptation compared with manually mixed materials, while sealing ability appears comparable between the two groups. Further well-designed laboratory investigations and clinical studies are required to determine whether improved marginal adaptation translates into superior long-term clinical 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.