Skip to main content

Table 3 Assessment of the outcomes of tested materials

From: The effect of retrograde material type and surgical techniques on the success rate of surgical endodontic retreatment: systematic review of prospective randomized clinical trials

Study

Materials

        

Significance of difference

MTA

Super EBA

iRoot BP Plus

IRM

Ketac silver

Compomer Dyract

Chelon silver

Retroplast

GP

S%

F%

S%

F%

S%

F%

S%

F%

S%

F%

S%

F%

S%

F%

S%

F%

S%

F%

Jensen et al. [11]

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

52

48

82

18

–

–

Yes

Chong et al. [12]

84

16

–

–

–

–

76

24

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

No

Platt and Wannfors [13]

–

–

–

–

–

–

––

–

44

56

89

11

–

–

–

–

–

–

Yes

Lindeboom et al. [14]

92

8

–

–

–

–

86

14

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

No

Christiansen et al. [15]

96

4

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

52

48

Yes

Wälivaara et al. [16]

–

–

–

–

–

–

84.8

15.2

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

89.6

10.4

No

Wälivaara et al. [17]

–

–

81.6

18.4

–

–

90.6

9.4

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

No

Song et al. [43]

95.6

4.4

93.1

6.9

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

No

Kim et al. [19]-4 years (follow up)

91.6

8.4

89.9

10.1

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

No

Kurse et al. [20]–6 years (follow up)

84

16

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

55

45

Yes

Zhou et al. [21]

93.1

6.9

–

–

94.4

5.6

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

–

No