ReviewDentistry journal2025
Bioceramics in Endodontics: Limitations and Future Innovations-A Review.
Review in Dentistry journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Outcomes and Associated Prognostic Factors for Orthograde Canal Obturation Using Ortho MTA III: A Randomised Prospective Clinical Trial.International endodontic journal · 2026Trial
- Colour change and fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth after staining and walking bleach: role of filling strategy.Odontology · 2026Article
- Influence of cement composition and scaler selection on dental cement removal and surface damage.Odontology · 2026Article
- Post-Operative Pain After Endodontic Instrumentation, Irrigation and Obturation: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews Published from 2016 to 2025.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Bioactivity and dimensional stability of resin-, hybrid-, and silicate-based endodontic sealers: An in vitro comparative study.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- Narrative Review of Endodontic Biomaterials.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Use of Bioceramic Sealers in Clinical Practice Among Dentists in Saudi Arabia: A Cross-Sectional Analysis.Cureus · 2026Article
- Adverse tissue reaction to a next-generation bioceramic sealer: a structured literature review and case report.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Review
- Biomaterials in Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- Advanced Microstructural Investigation of the Endodontic Sealing Ability of Three Different Obturation Techniques.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- In Vivo Comparison of Resin-Modified and Pure Calcium-Silicate Cements for Direct Pulp Capping.Applied sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Three Calcium Silicate-Based Materials for Direct Pulp Capping: AnbioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- Application and mechanism study of EMD-Gel composite scaffold in dental pulp tissue repair.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Endodontic bioceramics: current and futurity aspects.Frontiers in oral health · 2025Review
- Clinical and radiographic success of single-cone bioceramic obturation versus traditional techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchReview
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
Bioceramic materials for endodontic treatments have gradually transformed over the years into materials with enhanced biocompatibility and chemical and mechanical properties compared to earlier generations. In endodontics procedures, these materials are used as restorative material in applications such as root-end fillings, pulp capping, perforations repair, and apexification repair procedures. However, they have far from ideal mechanical and handling properties, biocompatibility issues, aesthetic concerns due to tooth discolouration, limited antibacterial activity, and affordability, which are amongst several key limitations. Notably, bioceramic materials are popular due to their biocompatibility, sealing ability, and durability, consequently surpassing traditional materials such as gutta-percha and zinc oxide-eugenol sealers. A lack of recent advancements in the field, combined with nanomaterials, has improved the formulations of these materials to overcome these limitations. The existing literature emphasises the benefits of bioceramics while underreporting their poor mechanical properties, handling difficulties, cost, and various other drawbacks. The key gaps identified in the literature are the insufficient coverage of emerging materials, narrow scope, limited insights into future developments, and underreporting of failures and complications of the existing materials. Consequently, this review aims to highlight the key limitations of various endodontic materials, primarily focusing on calcium silicate, calcium phosphate, and bioactive glass-based materials, which are the most abundantly used materials in dentistry. Based on the literature, bioceramic materials in endodontics have significantly improved over recent years, with different combinations of materials and technology compared to earlier generations while preserving many of their original properties, with some having affordable costs. This review also identified key innovations that could shape the future of endodontic materials, highlighting the ongoing evolution and advancements in endodontic treatments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.