SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Comparative efficacy of novel biomaterials versus traditional materials in the treatment of dental and pulpal diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of the physicochemical properties and adhesive interface quality of BioRoot Flow and BioRoot RCS endodontic sealers: An in vitro study.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Bioceramic versus conventional endodontic sealers: An umbrella review.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to compare the efficacy of novel bioceramic sealers versus traditional epoxy resin-based sealers (AH Plus) used with the single-cone technique in root canal treatment, focusing on postoperative pain, apical sealing, overfilling, retreatment difficulty, and clinical success. Methods: Following PRISMA guidelines, a comprehensive search was conducted across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Web of Science, CNKI, and Wanfang databases from January 2014 to December 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and cohort studies comparing bioceramic sealers (e.g., iRoot SP, Bio-C Sealer) to AH Plus were included. Two reviewers independently extracted data and assessed quality using Cochrane RoB 2.0 and Newcastle-Ottawa tools. Meta-analyses were performed using RevMan 5.4, employing fixed- or random-effects models based on heterogeneity ( Results: Fifteen studies (11 RCTs, 4 cohorts; 1,528 teeth) were included. Bioceramic sealers significantly reduced postoperative pain (OR = 0.48, 95% CI: 0.35-0.66, Conclusion: Bioceramic sealers outperform AH Plus in reducing pain and enhancing sealing but carry higher overfilling and retreatment challenges. Mid-term success rates are comparable. Clinicians should prioritize bioceramics for cases demanding superior sealing and comfort while employing careful technique to mitigate risks. Long-term studies are needed to validate durability and retreatment protocols. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, identifier (CRD420261285302).
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.