Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Summary Review
  • Published:

Which is the superior retrograde filling material? We don't know!

Evidence-Based Dentistry volume 23, pages 54–55 (2022)Cite this article

Abstract

Clinical question Is Biodentine better than MTA as a root-end filling material?

Data sources Cochrane, PubMed-Medline and Scopus databases were searched independently by two authors. In addition, a manual search was performed in high-quality endodontic journals.

Data extraction and synthesis The name of the authors, the year of publication, sample size, the measurement method used, follow-up time for each of the three and main outcomes (bond strength, marginal gap and sealing ability) were extracted in the form of tables and evidence presented. The level of scientific evidence was assessed using Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT).

Quality of included studies Not performed.

Results A total of 13 publications were included and all of them were in vitro studies. With regards to bond strength, two of four studies indicated Biodentine performed better than MTA while the other two showed no significant difference. Microleakage studies and sealing ability indicated no clear superiority of one over the other.

Conclusions Lack of scientific evidence regarding the superiority of tricalcium silicate over mineral trioxide aggregate as a root-end filling material in periapical surgery.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Niederman R, Theodosopoulou J N. A systematic review of in vivo retrograde obturation materials. Int Endod J 2003; 36: 577-585.

  2. Howick J, Chalmers I, Glasziou P et al. Explanation of the 2011 Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (OCEBM) Levels of Evidence (Background Document). Available at https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/explanation-of-the-2011-ocebm-levels-of-evidence/ (accessed November 2021).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, USA

    Parthasarathy Madurantakam

Authors
  1. Parthasarathy Madurantakam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Parthasarathy Madurantakam.

Ethics declarations

The author declares no conflict of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Madurantakam, P. Which is the superior retrograde filling material? We don't know!. Evid Based Dent 23, 54–55 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-022-0237-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41432-022-0237-z

Search

Advanced search

Quick links