Primary study · included by 1 review

Khandelwal 2022

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

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 Khandelwal 2022 · Table 2 (reference 39); 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

1 including review in total.