Primary study · included by 1 review
Effect of technique of sealer agitation on percentage and depth of MTA Fillapex sealer penetration: A comparative in-vitro study.
Nikhil et al. 2015 · Nikhil Vineeta, Bansal Parul, Sawani Shefali · Journal of conservative dentistry : JCD · 2015
Included by
| Outcome this study informs | Pooled effect | Evidence | Certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Sealer penetration depth (µm) Ultrasonic sealer placement or activation vs Non-ultrasonic sealer placement techniques | WMD 232.41 [184.25, 280.56] | NR | GRADE not reported |
Sealer penetration depth (µm) Ultrasonic sealer placement or activation vs Non-ultrasonic sealer placement techniques | WMD 254.66 [180.88, 328.44] | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
Sealer penetration depth (µm) Ultrasonic sealer placement or activation vs Non-ultrasonic sealer placement techniques | WMD 425.64 [36.65, 814.64] | NR | GRADE not reported |
Canal wall coverage (%) Ultrasonic sealer placement or activation vs Non-ultrasonic sealer placement techniques | WMD 13.99 [8.80, 19.18] | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
Sealer penetration depth into dentinal tubules (micrometers) Ultrasonic sealer placement or activation vs Non-ultrasonic sealer placement (Lentulo spiral, hand or rotary file, sonic activation) · Immediately after obturation (laboratory) | WMD 233.72 [124.47, 342.98] | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
Sealer penetration depth into dentinal tubules (micrometers) Ultrasonic sealer placement or activation vs Non-ultrasonic sealer placement (Lentulo spiral, hand or rotary file, sonic activation) · Immediately after obturation (laboratory) | WMD 255.51 [179.93, 331.08] | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
Sealer penetration depth into dentinal tubules (micrometers) Ultrasonic sealer placement or activation vs Non-ultrasonic sealer placement (Lentulo spiral, hand or rotary file, sonic activation) · Immediately after obturation (laboratory) | WMD 254.66 [90.62, 418.69] | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
Percentage of canal wall coverage with sealer Ultrasonic sealer placement or activation vs Non-ultrasonic sealer placement (Lentulo spiral, hand or rotary file, sonic activation) · Immediately after obturation (laboratory) | WMD 17.79 [4.51, 31.08] | 4 studies | GRADE not reported |
Percentage of canal wall coverage with sealer Ultrasonic sealer placement or activation vs Non-ultrasonic sealer placement (Lentulo spiral, hand or rotary file, sonic activation) · Immediately after obturation (laboratory) | WMD 12.85 [8.84, 16.86] | 4 studies | GRADE not reported |
Sealer penetration depth (µm) Ultrasonic sealer placement or activation vs Non-ultrasonic sealer placement techniques | WMD 283.66 [160.98, 406.35] | 2 studies | GRADE not reported |
Canal wall coverage (%) Ultrasonic sealer placement or activation vs Non-ultrasonic sealer placement techniques | WMD 17.30 [7.47, 27.13] | 4 studies | GRADE not reported |
Canal wall coverage (%) Ultrasonic sealer placement or activation vs Non-ultrasonic sealer placement techniques | WMD 13.42 [8.74, 18.09] | 2 studies | GRADE not reported |
Sealer penetration depth (µm) Ultrasonic sealer placement or activation vs Non-ultrasonic sealer placement techniques | WMD 248.86 [162.51, 335.22] | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
Canal wall coverage (%) Ultrasonic sealer placement or activation vs Non-ultrasonic sealer placement techniques | WMD 17.79 [9.73, 25.86] | 4 studies | GRADE not reported |
Canal wall coverage (%) Ultrasonic sealer placement or activation vs Non-ultrasonic sealer placement techniques | WMD 17.80 [9.72, 25.87] | 4 studies | GRADE not reported |
1 including review in total.