ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2026
Observation on the clinical effects of four kinds of root canal filling materials in the treatment of chronic periapical periodontitis.
Article in American journal of translational research, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the clinical efficacy of four root canal filling materials for the treatment of chronic periapical periodontitis.
methodsThe clinical data of 200 patients with chronic periapical periodontitis from January 2023 to October 2024 were retrospectively analyzed. Based on the different filling materials, the patients were divided into four groups: Group A (C-Root SP group), Group B (AH Plus group), Group C (Apexit Plus group), and Group D (iRoot SP group), with 50 patients in each group. The overall effective rate, pain status (Visual Analog Scale, VAS score), and Perial Index (PAI) score were compared among the four groups.
resultsThere was no statistically significant difference in total effective rate among the four groups at 3 and 6 months after treatment (P > 0.05). At 12 months after treatment, the total effective rate of groups A, B, and D was significantly higher than that of group C (P < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in VAS scores among the four groups after treatment (P > 0.05). At 12 months after treatment, the PAI scores of groups A, B, and D were significantly lower than those of group C (P < 0.05).
conclusionThere is no significant difference in the short-term application effects of C-Root SP, AH Plus, Apexit Plus and iRoot SP in chronic periapical periodontitis, but the long-term effect and stability of Apexit Plus are relatively poor.
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.