ArticleBMC oral health2026
Effect of different materials and canal filling methods in apexification of simulated immature teeth on fracture resistance-in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
Abstract
backgroundThe restoration of immature teeth with thin dentinal walls remains a clinical challenge, and the choice of root canal filling material may influence their resistance to fracture. This in vitro study aimed to evaluate the fracture resistance and fracture patterns of simulated immature roots filled with different root canal filling materials and coronal backfilling strategies.
methodsSixty-four simulated immature maxillary central incisors were standardized and randomly allocated into eight groups: negative and positive controls, TotalFill RRM Putty or Biodentine used alone, or each material combined with either thermoplasticized gutta-percha or a dual-cure composite resin (Grandio Core). Following apexification procedures, fracture resistance was measured using a universal testing machine, and fractures were classified as restorable or unrestorable. Statistical analyses included Welch ANOVA with Games-Howell post-hoc tests and Fisher's Exact Test for fracture type evaluation.
resultsSignificant differences in fracture resistance were observed among groups (p < 0.001). The positive control group demonstrated the lowest resistance. In contrast, the TotalFill RRM Putty + gutta-percha, Biodentine, and Biodentine + gutta-percha groups exhibited fracture resistance values comparable to those of the negative control (p > 0.05). Groups restored with gutta-percha showed higher fracture resistance than those restored with composite resin. Fracture mode distribution also differed significantly among groups (p = 0.047).
conclusionsRoot canal filling materials and coronal backfilling techniques have a significant influence on the biomechanical behavior of immature teeth. Thermoplasticized gutta-percha demonstrated superior reinforcement compared with dual-cure composite resin, while Biodentine and TotalFill RRM Putty exhibited comparable mechanical performance. Material selection and obturation strategy play a crucial role in enhancing the structural integrity of immature roots during apexification procedures.
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.