Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40277487›Full record

ReviewDentistry journal2025

Bioceramics in Endodontics: Limitations and Future Innovations-A Review.

Peramune Arachchilage Amila Saman Prasad Kumara, Paul Roy Cooper, Peter Cathro, Maree Gould, George Dias, Jithendra Ratnayake

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
15citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

15 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Review
  6. Narrative Review of Endodontic Biomaterials.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Biomaterials in Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
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.

Peramune Arachchilage Amila Saman Prasad KumaraSir John Walsh Research Institute, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin 9016, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-0788-2029
Paul Roy CooperSir John Walsh Research Institute, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin 9016, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-1305-7287
Peter CathroSir John Walsh Research Institute, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin 9016, New Zealand.
Maree GouldSir John Walsh Research Institute, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin 9016, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0003-3733-1359
George DiasDepartment of Anatomy, School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Otago, Dunedin 9016, New Zealand.
Jithendra RatnayakeSir John Walsh Research Institute, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Otago, Dunedin 9016, New Zealand.ORCID 0000-0002-8534-4472

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

bioactive glassbioceramicscalcium phosphatecalcium silicatedrawbacksendodontics

Identifiers

PMID40277487
PMCPMC12026347

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.