ReviewIranian endodontic journal2026
Efficacy of Bioceramic Cements Versus Conventional Cements in the Prognosis of Endodontic Treatments in Patients with Apical Periodontitis: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.
Review in Iranian endodontic journal, 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
Introduction: Successful management of apical periodontitis relies on effective root canal obturation to eliminate microbial activity and promote periapical healing. Bioceramic sealers have emerged as alternatives to conventional sealers due to their favorable biocompatibility and potential regenerative properties. However, their comparative clinical efficacy remains uncertain. Materials and Methods: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Four electronic databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase) were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing bioceramic and conventional sealers. Three reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using the RoB 2.0 tool. The primary outcomes were apical healing and postoperative pain; secondary outcomes included adverse events and procedural complications. Meta-analysis was performed using a random-effects model. Results: From 491 identified records, 12 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis of four studies found no statistically significant difference in healing rates between bioceramic and conventional sealers (RR=1.05, 95% CI: 0.89-1.23, P=0.61; I²=0%). No major adverse events were reported. Although bioceramic sealers have theoretical advantages, the current evidence does not support their clinical superiority over conventional sealers, as the meta-analysis showed non-significant results and some methodological limitations were identified. Conclusion: Bioceramic sealers appear to be clinically comparable to conventional sealers regarding periapical healing and postoperative outcomes. However, due to the limited and heterogeneous data, further high-quality RCTs with standardized outcome measures are needed to determine their relative effectiveness.
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.