Primary study · included by 2 reviews

Bardini et al. 2021

ProbableThe reviews cited this study without a PMID, DOI or NCT, so it is matched by first author and year. Two different studies by the same author in the same year could be merged here.

Included by

Effect of root canal filling techniques and materials on endodontic treatment outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2026 · cited as Bardini et al. 2021 · Table 2 (reference 56)

The review does not say which of its outcomes this study informs.

Efficacy of Bioceramic Cements Versus Conventional Cements in the Prognosis of Endodontic Treatments in Patients with Apical Periodontitis: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.

Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2026 · cited as Bardini 2021 · Table 2 (reference 12); Figure 3 (periapical healing meta-analysis)

Outcome this study informs	Pooled effect	Evidence	Certainty
Periapical healing (healing success) Bioceramic sealers (e.g., BioRoot RCS, iRoot SP, Meta CeraSeal) vs Conventional sealers (AH Plus, zinc oxide-eugenol, calcium hydroxide-based) · 6 to 12 months follow-up	RR 1.05 [0.89, 1.23]	4 studies · 199 participants	GRADE not reported
Periapical healing (healing success) Bioceramic sealers (e.g., BioRoot RCS, iRoot SP, Meta CeraSeal) vs Conventional sealers (AH Plus, zinc oxide-eugenol, calcium hydroxide-based) · 6 to 12 months follow-up	RR 0.995 [0.875, 1.132]	6 studies	GRADE not reported
Periapical healing (healing success) Bioceramic sealers (e.g., BioRoot RCS, iRoot SP, Meta CeraSeal) vs Conventional sealers (AH Plus, zinc oxide-eugenol, calcium hydroxide-based) · 6 to 12 months follow-up	RR 1.08 [0.94, 1.24]	4 studies · 199 participants	GRADE not reported

2 including reviews in total.