ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Outcome and erosion of root-end filling materials following endodontic apical surgery: a minimum follow-up of 4 years.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the long-term outcomes of apical surgery using intermediate restorative material (IRM) and hydraulic calcium silicate cements (HCSCs) as root-end filling materials. MATERIALS AND
methodsApical surgery was performed between 2012 and 2020. Of the 336 teeth initially treated, 137 met the final inclusion criteria. Periapical healing was classified as complete, incomplete, uncertain, or unsatisfactory. Root-end filling material erosion was assessed radiographically using the Erosion Index (EI), ranging from 0 to 4.
resultsThe mean follow-up period was 6.6 ± 2.7 years. IRM was used in 72 (52.6%), while HCSCs were used in 65 (47.4%) teeth. Complete healing was observed in 84 (61.3%) teeth, incomplete healing in 13(9.5%), uncertain healing in 21(15.3%), and unsatisfactory healing in 19 (13.9%). Fifteen teeth were extracted, resulting in a tooth survival rate of 89.1%. Late failures occurred in 10 (7.3%) of the initially successful cases, with equal distribution between IRM (n = 5) and HCSC (n = 5). Erosion was detected in 20(14.6%) teeth, affecting 11.1% of IRM and 18.5% of HCSC cases, with no significant difference between materials. Complete healing was significantly associated with tooth survival and the absence of late failure (p < 0.001). Teeth exhibiting erosion (EI 1-4) were less likely to achieve complete healing compared with those without erosion (EI 0)(OR = 2.7, 95% CI: 0.8-8.1; p < 0.05).
conclusionsApical surgery demonstrated high long-term tooth survival and favourable healing outcomes, irrespective of whether IRM or HCSCs were used. Material erosion was associated with a reduced likelihood of complete periapical healing. These findings emphasize the importance of long-term follow-up, as late failures may occur despite initially successful treatment outcomes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: These findings suggest that clinical erosion of root-end filling materials has not been extensively investigated previously. It may represent a contributing factor to failures following apical surgery and therefore warrants further research and validation.
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.