ArticleBMC oral health2026
Obturation quality analysis of furcation perforations repaired with different magnifications and biomaterials.
Article 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.
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionThis study aimed to evaluate the obturation quality of furcation perforations repaired using two different calcium silicate-based materials under two different magnification levels, using micro-computed tomography analysis.
methodsForty-eight standardized dentin disks with artificially created perforations were randomly assigned into four groups: White MTA (Angelus, Londrina, Brazil) under 4×, Bio-C Repair (Angelus, Londrina, Brazil) under 4×, White MTA under 10×, and Bio-C Repair under 10× magnification (n = 12). The perforated dentin disks were bonded to a resin crown using composite resin and subsequently mounted onto a phantom head model. The repairs were performed using a dental operating microscope (DOM), and a single experienced endodontist completed all procedures. After setting, the samples underwent micro-CT scanning. The volumes of materials, gaps, and voids were measured and differences between groups were analyzed using Kruskal Wallis test, t-test and Mann Whitney U test.
resultsAll samples exhibited some degree of voids and gaps. Magnification level (4× vs. 10×) did not significantly affect obturation quality (p > 0.05). However, the type of repair material had a significant impact on the outcome. White MTA exhibited significantly fewer voids, gaps, and total unfilled volume compared to Bio-C Repair (p < 0.05).
conclusionIncreasing the magnification level from 4× to 10× did not improve the sealing quality in furcation perforation repair. However, White MTA demonstrated superior adaptation and condensation characteristics to Bio-C Repair, regardless of magnification. While handling the properties of powder-liquid MTA may pose clinical challenges, it remains a more effective option for achieving superior sealing in furcation perforation repairs than premixed putty formulations.
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.