Clinical and radiographic success of single-cone bioceramic obturation versus traditional techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Q1 Medicine

Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research Pub Date : 2025-09-02 DOI:10.1016/j.jobcr.2025.08.031

Firas Elmsmari , Yousef Elsayed , Abdelrahman Aboubakr , Mahdi Kaafarani , Osama Nour , Ajinkya M. Pawar

{"title":"Clinical and radiographic success of single-cone bioceramic obturation versus traditional techniques: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials","authors":"Firas Elmsmari , Yousef Elsayed , Abdelrahman Aboubakr , Mahdi Kaafarani , Osama Nour , Ajinkya M. Pawar","doi":"10.1016/j.jobcr.2025.08.031","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Bioceramic sealers, known for their bioactivity and biocompatibility, offer a promising alternative to traditional resin-based sealers. However, clinical evaluations are lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the clinical and radiographic outcomes of bioceramic single-cone obturation with those of conventional treatment and sealers.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, ScienceDirect, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to March 2024. Our review protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (<strong>CRD420250212604</strong>). Included studies compared bioceramic single-cone obturation with conventional obturation in permanent teeth with a follow-up of ≥6 months. Risk of bias was assessed using the second version of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0). A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate pooled success rates, odds ratios (ORs), and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed via I<sup>2</sup> statistics and Egger's test.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Three RCTs involving 259 participants met inclusion criteria. The success rates for the bioceramic group were 88.7 %, 87.1 %, and 92.0 % at 6, 12, and 18 months, respectively, while those for the controls were 76.4 %, 76.4 %, and 90.7 %, respectively. Three studies reported higher success rates in the bioceramic groups than in the controls, although between-group differences were not statistically significant (overall OR range 1.12–2.09; p > 0.05). We observed moderate heterogeneity at the early follow-ups and negligible heterogeneity at the 18-month follow-ups.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Single-cone obturation with bioceramic sealers may result in small but clinically relevant advantages; however, more high-quality RCTs with longer-term follow-up are needed.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":16609,"journal":{"name":"Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research","volume":"15 6","pages":"Pages 1422-1432"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2212426825002106","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Bioceramic sealers, known for their bioactivity and biocompatibility, offer a promising alternative to traditional resin-based sealers. However, clinical evaluations are lacking. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the clinical and radiographic outcomes of bioceramic single-cone obturation with those of conventional treatment and sealers.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search of PubMed, ScienceDirect, and the Cochrane Library for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published up to March 2024. Our review protocol was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD420250212604). Included studies compared bioceramic single-cone obturation with conventional obturation in permanent teeth with a follow-up of ≥6 months. Risk of bias was assessed using the second version of the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0). A random-effects meta-analysis was performed to calculate pooled success rates, odds ratios (ORs), and 95 % confidence intervals (CIs). Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed via I² statistics and Egger's test.

Results

Three RCTs involving 259 participants met inclusion criteria. The success rates for the bioceramic group were 88.7 %, 87.1 %, and 92.0 % at 6, 12, and 18 months, respectively, while those for the controls were 76.4 %, 76.4 %, and 90.7 %, respectively. Three studies reported higher success rates in the bioceramic groups than in the controls, although between-group differences were not statistically significant (overall OR range 1.12–2.09; p > 0.05). We observed moderate heterogeneity at the early follow-ups and negligible heterogeneity at the 18-month follow-ups.

Conclusion

Single-cone obturation with bioceramic sealers may result in small but clinically relevant advantages; however, more high-quality RCTs with longer-term follow-up are needed.

查看原文本刊更多论文

与传统技术相比，单锥生物陶瓷闭合术的临床和影像学成功：随机对照试验的系统回顾和荟萃分析

生物陶瓷密封剂以其生物活性和生物相容性而闻名，为传统的树脂基密封剂提供了一个有希望的替代品。然而，缺乏临床评价。本系统综述和荟萃分析比较了生物陶瓷单锥封闭术与常规治疗和封闭术的临床和影像学结果。方法系统检索PubMed、ScienceDirect和Cochrane图书馆截至2024年3月发表的随机对照试验（rct）。我们的审查方案已在国际前瞻性系统评论注册（PROSPERO）（CRD420250212604）中注册。纳入的研究比较了生物陶瓷单锥体封闭与传统的恒牙封闭，随访时间≥6个月。使用第二版Cochrane偏倚风险工具（RoB 2.0）评估偏倚风险。随机效应荟萃分析计算合并成功率、优势比（ORs）和95%置信区间（ci）。通过I2统计量和Egger’s检验评估异质性和发表偏倚。结果3项随机对照试验共纳入259例受试者，符合纳入标准。在6、12、18个月时，生物陶瓷组的成功率分别为88.7%、87.1%、92.0%，而对照组的成功率分别为76.4%、76.4%、90.7%。三项研究报告生物陶瓷组的成功率高于对照组，但组间差异无统计学意义（总OR范围1.12-2.09;p > 0.05）。我们在早期随访中观察到中度异质性，在18个月的随访中观察到可忽略的异质性。结论生物陶瓷单锥封闭术虽小，但具有临床意义；然而，需要更多高质量、长期随访的随机对照试验。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research Medicine-Otorhinolaryngology

CiteScore

4.90

自引率

0.00%

发文量

133

审稿时长

167 days

期刊介绍： Journal of Oral Biology and Craniofacial Research (JOBCR)is the official journal of the Craniofacial Research Foundation (CRF). The journal aims to provide a common platform for both clinical and translational research and to promote interdisciplinary sciences in craniofacial region. JOBCR publishes content that includes diseases, injuries and defects in the head, neck, face, jaws and the hard and soft tissues of the mouth and jaws and face region; diagnosis and medical management of diseases specific to the orofacial tissues and of oral manifestations of systemic diseases; studies on identifying populations at risk of oral disease or in need of specific care, and comparing regional, environmental, social, and access similarities and differences in dental care between populations; diseases of the mouth and related structures like salivary glands, temporomandibular joints, facial muscles and perioral skin; biomedical engineering, tissue engineering and stem cells. The journal publishes reviews, commentaries, peer-reviewed original research articles, short communication, and case reports.