Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42709313›Full record

ArticleOdontology2026

Clinical and radiological outcomes of Thermafil Plus used with bioceramic versus epoxy-resin sealer: results from a 12-month randomized clinical trial.

Andrea Spinelli, Fausto Zamparini, Jacopo Lenzi, Gian Andrea Pelliccioni, Maria Giovanna Gandolfi, Carlo Prati

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Odontology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06252337 (Sopravvivenza e Healing Rate di Due Tecniche di Otturazione Canalare), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT06252337 naactive not recruitingnot on this map

Sopravvivenza e Healing Rate di Due Tecniche di Otturazione Canalare: Studio Clinico Randomizzato

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of BolognaRan2023 to 2026Enrolled80ConditionsPeriapical Diseases, Bioceramic Sealers, Survival Rate, Healing RateArmsbioceramic sealer group
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Andrea SpinelliEndodontic Clinical Section, Dental School, Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna, Via San Vitale 59, Bologna, 40125, Italy.
Fausto ZampariniEndodontic Clinical Section, Dental School, Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna, Via San Vitale 59, Bologna, 40125, Italy. fausto.zamparini2@unibo.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0071-4463
Jacopo LenziDepartment of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, Alma Mater Studiorum, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Gian Andrea PelliccioniEndodontic Clinical Section, Dental School, Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna, Via San Vitale 59, Bologna, 40125, Italy.
Maria Giovanna GandolfiLaboratory of Green Biomaterials and Oral Pathology, Dental School, Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
Carlo PratiEndodontic Clinical Section, Dental School, Department of Biomedical and Neuromotor Sciences, University of Bologna, Via San Vitale 59, Bologna, 40125, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This randomized clinical trial compared the clinical and radiographic outcomes and post-operative pain of a bioceramic-containing sealer (AH Plus Bioceramic) versus an epoxy resin-based sealer (AH Plus) in primary and secondary root canal treatments over 12-month follow-up. A total of 99 permanent teeth from ASA I or II patients were enrolled and randomly allocated to two groups: group A (AH Plus Bioceramic) and group B (AH Plus). Six patients (8 teeth) were excluded from the analysis due to missed follow-up appointments, leaving 91 teeth (group A: n = 47; group B: n = 44) for evaluation. Standardized endodontic procedures and disinfection protocols were followed. All root canals were obturated using Thermafil Plus in combination with the assigned sealer. Radiographic evaluations were performed at baseline, 1-, 3-, 6- and 12-month follow-ups and periapical index was recorded. The presence or resorption of apical sealer extrusions was also recorded. Postoperative pain was evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale before treatment, at 24 h, 48 h, 72 h, one week and one month. At the 12-month follow-up, both sealers demonstrated a high success rate. In group A 87.2% of teeth were healed. In group B 90.9% of teeth were healed and one tooth (2.3%) was extracted and was considered as treatment failure. No significant differences were found between groups in terms of radiographic healing (p > 0.05). Sealer extrusion was observed in both groups (group A = 53%; group B = 66%). Radiographic resorption of extruded sealer was observed only in group A, whereas partial morphological modification was uncommon and occurred in both groups. No significant between-group differences were observed in periapical healing or postoperative pain. AH Plus Bioceramic and AH Plus sealers, when used with Thermafil Plus, showed similar 12-month clinical and radiographic outcomes. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT06252337.

Indexed as

Bioceramic sealerCalcium silicate sealerEpoxy resin sealerPeriapical healingPostoperative painRandomized clinical trialSealer extrusionWarm carrier-based obturation

Identifiers

PMID42709313

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.