evidencegaps
Primary study · included by 1 review

Effect of Ultrasonic Activation of Endodontic Sealers on Intratubular Penetration and Bond Strength to Root Dentin.

De Bem et al. 2020 · De Bem Igor Abreu, de Oliveira Renata Aqel, Weissheimer Theodoro, et al. · Journal of endodontics · 2020

Included by

Comparative effects of ultrasonic and conventional sealer placement techniques on endodontic sealer layer quality: a systematic review and meta-analysis of in vitro studies.
Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2026 · cited as De Bem 2020 · Reference list; Supplementary File S3
Outcome this study informsPooled effectEvidenceCertainty
Canal wall coverage (%)
Ultrasonic sealer placement or activation vs Non-ultrasonic sealer placement techniques
WMD 13.99 [8.80, 19.18]3 studiesGRADE 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 studiesGRADE 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 studiesGRADE not reported
Canal wall coverage (%)
Ultrasonic sealer placement or activation vs Non-ultrasonic sealer placement techniques
WMD 17.30 [7.47, 27.13]4 studiesGRADE not reported
Canal wall coverage (%)
Ultrasonic sealer placement or activation vs Non-ultrasonic sealer placement techniques
WMD 13.42 [8.74, 18.09]2 studiesGRADE not reported
Canal wall coverage (%)
Ultrasonic sealer placement or activation vs Non-ultrasonic sealer placement techniques
WMD 17.79 [9.73, 25.86]4 studiesGRADE not reported
Canal wall coverage (%)
Ultrasonic sealer placement or activation vs Non-ultrasonic sealer placement techniques
WMD 17.80 [9.72, 25.87]4 studiesGRADE not reported

1 including review in total.