ArticleLasers in medical science2012
Comparison of the effects of Er,Cr:YSGG laser and different cavity disinfection agents on microleakage of current adhesives.
Article in Lasers in medical science, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact of acid and laser etching of enamel on microleakage in different adhesive systems.Lasers in medical science · 2024Article
- Influence of chlorhexidine dentin disinfection on universal adhesive performance: Interfacial adaptation and bond strength assessments.PloS one · 2024Article
- The effects of cavity disinfection on the nanoleakage of compomer restorations: an in vitro study.European oral research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the effect of the Er,Cr:YSGG laser and different cavity disinfection agents on microleakage of an etch-and-rinse and a self-etch adhesive. Class V preparations were completed on the buccal and lingual surfaces of 30 extracted noncarious human molars. The occlusal margin was placed on enamel and the gingival margin on dentin. Preparations were randomly divided into five experimental groups (n = 12); (1) 2% chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX), (2) propolis, (3) ozone, (4) Er,Cr:YSGG laser, and (5) control (no treatment). Each group was divided into two subgroups according to the adhesive system: etch-and-rinse (Adper Single Bond 2), and a self-etch adhesive (All-Bond SE). The preparations were bulk-filled with a resin composite (Arabesk). After storage in distilled water for 24 h the restored teeth were subjected to thermocycling (1,000 cycles; 5-55°C). All specimens were immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin solution for 24 h and sectioned longitudinally through the centre of the restorations and examined under a stereomicroscope at ×25 magnification. The data were analysed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests. No difference was observed between the groups either on enamel or dentin when the etch-and-rinse adhesive was used (p > 0.05). In the self-etch adhesive groups, a significant difference was found only between the laser group and the CHX group on enamel and between the propolis group and the control group on dentin (p < 0.05). Comparing the etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesives within each group, no differences were found on dentin (p > 0.05). On enamel, a statistically significant difference was found only in the CHX group (p < 0.05). There were no differences in microleakage with the laser and the different cavity disinfectant applications when used with etch-and-rinse adhesive. In the self-etch group there were differences in microleakage depending on the disinfection agent used.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21853319What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.