Study designs of evaluations included in the review
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and preliminary quasi-RCTs were eligible for inclusion. The included studies were clinical trials, two of which were considered to have used reliable randomisation methods.
Specific interventions included in the review
Studies comparing warm gutta-percha and CLC techniques for root canal obturation were eligible for inclusion. The included studies used several different warm GP techniques, such as thermomechanical compaction and ultrasonic condensation of GP.
Participants included in the review
Studies of participants with pulp disease or chronic apical periodontitis, and who had not received previous root canal treatment, were eligible for inclusion. Studies using extracted teeth or simulated models (in vitro) were excluded. The studies included in the review were conducted in clinical patients (in vivo).
Outcomes assessed in the review
Studies reporting healing rates based on clinical symptoms and/or radiographic evidence were eligible for inclusion. The included studies measured post-operative pain, long-term outcomes, obturation quality and rate of overextension. The latter was assessed using the distance between the root apex and end of GP, and was defined as a filling beyond the root apex.
How were decisions on the relevance of primary studies made?
At least two reviewers independently screened studies for relevance.