ReviewFrontiers in dental medicine2025
Evidence synthesis of postoperative pain with bioceramic vs. epoxy resin sealers: umbrella review of randomized trials within existing systematic reviews.
Review in Frontiers in dental medicine, 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.
- Bioceramic versus conventional endodontic sealers: An umbrella review.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The evidence on postoperative pain and clinical outcomes in patients receiving primary non-surgical root canal therapy with bioceramic vs. resin-based sealers was compiled in this comprehensive review from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Methods: The review followed PRISMA 2020 guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023461029). Systematic reviews included randomized or quasi-randomized trials of adult patients having treatment with either sealer type for postoperative pain, and used validated scales. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment by A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) were completed independently by two reviewers and review overlap was measured with the Corrected Covered Area (CCA). Where feasible, Results: Seven reviews (2020-2024) met eligibility, five with quantitative synthesis. Pooled analyses showed no significant differences in pain between sealer types within the first 6-48 h. Detected differences were small and clinically negligible. Both sealers showed similar analgesic use and flare-up rates. Methodological quality ranged from moderate to low; certainty of evidence for early pain was moderate and low for pain at >48 h due to study inconsistency and imprecision. Conclusions: Bioceramic sealers offer only a minimal, clinically insignificant reduction in early postoperative pain compared to resin-based sealers. Both nevertheless remain suitable options for reducing patient discomfort. Future studies should standardize pain evaluation, include retreatment cases, and explain clinically significant findings. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023461029, PROSPERO CRD42023461029.
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.