ReviewMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Silicone vs. Silicon/Silica in Intraoral Healing: A Systematic Review.
Review in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In the oral environment, silicone (polysiloxane) supports healing by creating low-permeability interfaces that limit microleakage, whereas silicon/silica systems support healing via hydroxyapatite nucleation. We synthesized human evidence on intraoral healing associated with silicone and silicon/silica-based materials and assessed translational differences between preclinical models and clinical settings. A systematic review (1990-September 2025) identified 14 clinical studies of bioactive glass (BAG) that met the inclusion criteria. Periodontal outcomes included probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and radiographic fill; endodontic outcomes included the periapical index (PAI). Human BAG studies showed periodontal benefits versus controls in intrabony defects, with reduced PD, improved CAL, and greater radiographic fill. For endodontic healing, a multicenter randomized clinical trial reported improved PAI at 12 months in both the zinc-oxide-eugenol and silicone-sealer groups without a significant between-group difference. The literature supports a functional split: silicone primarily provides sealing and permissive healing, whereas silicon/silica-based materials support signaling, interfacial bonding, and regenerative healing. Clinically, BAG appears most relevant for contained periodontal intrabony defects, whereas silicone sealers should be viewed primarily as stable sealing adjuncts to well-executed root canal therapy.
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.