Related Experiment Video
Updated: Oct 17, 2025
03:07
Scanning Electron Microscopic Evaluation of Surface Defects of Remover Retreatment File After Single and Multiple Uses
Published on: October 11, 2024
666
Materials for retrograde filling in root canal therapy
Honglin Li1, Zhiyong Guo2, Chunjie Li1
1State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, Department of Head and Neck Oncology, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
|October 14, 2021
Summary
This review found insufficient evidence to determine the best material for retrograde filling in root canal therapy. More high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to compare different materials and their success rates.
Area of Science:
- Endodontics
- Dental Materials Science
- Evidence-Based Dentistry
Background:
- Root canal therapy involves cleaning, shaping, and obturation of the root canal system.
- Retrograde filling is a treatment option when orthograde root canal therapy fails, sealing the canal from the root apex.
- Selecting the most effective retrograde filling material is crucial, as no single material meets all ideal criteria.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the effectiveness of various materials used for retrograde filling in root canal therapy.
- To compare the success rates of different retrograde filling materials in children and adults requiring this procedure.
- To update previous Cochrane reviews on this topic.
Main Methods:
- Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
- Searched multiple bibliographic databases and Chinese language databases up to April 2021.
- Included RCTs comparing different retrograde filling materials with at least 12-month follow-up, assessed by clinical or radiological methods.
Main Results:
- Eight studies with high risk of bias were included, involving 1399 participants.
- Comparisons included Mineral Trioxide Aggregate (MTA) vs. Intermediate Restorative Material (IRM), MTA vs. Super Ethoxybenzoic Acid (Super-EBA), and others.
- Evidence for all comparisons was of very low certainty, showing little to no significant difference in success rates at one year, or was too uncertain to draw conclusions.
Conclusions:
- Current evidence is insufficient to recommend one retrograde filling material over another.
- The included studies had a high risk of bias, limiting the reliability of the findings.
- Further high-quality randomized controlled trials are necessary to establish the efficacy of different retrograde filling materials.
