ReviewJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2026
Bioceramic versus conventional endodontic sealers: An umbrella review.
Review in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Sealers are important to provide hermetic obturation of root canals. Traditional sealers have wide clinical applications but are limited by cytotoxicity, solubility, and biocompatibility. However, bioceramic sealers offer bioactivity, alkaline antibacterial properties, and dentin bonding are the properties of bioceramic sealers, which still have concerns of extrusion, retreatment, and fewer long-term studies are available. Objective: The objective of the study was to compare the clinical characteristics of bioceramic and conventional root canal sealers in permanent teeth. Methodology: The umbrella review was registered in PROSPERO and followed the guidelines of the Joanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020. Seven databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Central, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, LILACS) as well as grey literature sources were searched comprehensively and in English. This last update of the search was made on May 10, 2026. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses that included randomized or clinical trials study designs were eligible. Data extraction and methodological appraisal (AMSTAR-2) was performed in duplicate. Results: A total of 17 systematic reviews (2021-2026) were included. In terms of postoperative pain, analgesic consumption, postoperative flare-up, radiographic healing, extrusion, retreatment difficulty, and long-term success, there was no difference between bioceramic and resin-based sealers. Minimal effect on pain at 24-48 h and somewhat beneficial healing were reported for bioceramic sealers, but the differences were small. There were no high-quality reviews identified, and 76% of the methodological appraisal of reviews was rated as being of a critically low quality, which reduced confidence in the conclusions. Conclusion: Bioceramic sealers demonstrate biological advantages but remain broadly equivalent to conventional resin-based sealers in clinical effectiveness. Observed short-term benefits are modest and not clinically decisive, while extrusion variability and retreatment difficulty highlight practical limitations.
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.