ArticleBMC oral health2026
Comparison of compaction techniques for filling isthmuses using Biodentine in mandibular molars.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study aimed to compare the filling volume and surface area of Biodentine placed in mandibular molar isthmuses using three different compaction techniques (manual, ultrasonic, and sonic endomotor system). MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty resin mandibular molars with simulated apical-third isthmuses were randomly assigned to three compaction groups: manual, ultrasonic, and sonic endomotor system. Biodentine was compacted manually, with indirect ultrasonic activation, or using a sonic endomotor system. All specimens were scanned with high-resolution CBCT, and filling volumes and surface areas were quantified in 3D Slicer. Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA.
resultsWhile the sonic endomotor group showed the highest mean filling volume (8.11 ± 0.79 mm³), followed by the ultrasonic (7.93 ± 1.52 mm³) and manual (7.33 ± 0.80 mm³) groups, no statistically significant differences were found among the groups for either filling volume or surface area.
conclusionsUnder the conditions tested, no statistically significant differences were detected among the three compaction techniques in terms of filling volume or surface area. No superiority of ultrasonic or sonic activation over manual compaction was demonstrated within the resolution limits of this CBCT-based methodology.
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.