THE USE OF BIOCERAMICS IN ENDODONTICS - LITERATURE REVIEW
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Bioceramics are ceramic compounds obtained both in situ and in vivo, by various chemical processes. Bioceramics exhibit excellent biocompatibility due to their similarity with biological materials, like hydroxyapatite. Bioceramics and multi-substituted hydroxyapatite or similar compounds have the ability to induce a regenerative response in the organism. The aim of this paper is to make a literature review on the main bioceramic materials currently used in endodontics and on their specific characteristics. METHODS: We conducted a search in the international databases (PubMed), to identify publications in the last 10 years, using the following key words: "bioceramics endodontics", "bioceramic endodontic cement", "bioceramic sealer" and "direct pulp capping bioceramic". RESULTS: Commonly used endodontic sealers (e.g., containing zinc oxide, calcium hydroxide and a resin) have a long tradition in scientific research and clinical use in endodontics. For specific cases, like root resorptions, perforations, apexification, and retrograde fillings, new biocompatible materials were developed in order to improve the clinical outcome: ProRooT MTA (Dentsply Company, Germany); Biodentine (Septodont, France); Endosequence BC sealer (Brassler, SUA); Bioaggregate (IBC, Canada); Generex A (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, USA). CONCLUSION: The studies are generally in favor of bioceramic materials even if there are not many products available on the market for endodontic use. As more products are launched and more research is performed regarding these materials, we will provide more reliable data on clinical outcome.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".