Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23674614›Full record

Trial reportDento maxillo facial radiology2013

The effect of 3 T MRI on microleakage of amalgam restorations.

S Yilmaz, M Misirlioglu

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Dento maxillo facial radiology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

22 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. MRI in Dentistry- A Future Towards Radiation Free Imaging - Systematic Review.Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR · 2016
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Does magnetic resonance imaging affect the microleakage of amalgam restorations?Iranian journal of radiology : a quarterly journal published by the Iranian Radiological Society · 2014
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

S YilmazDepartment of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Kirikkale University, Kirikkale, Turkey. semiyard@gmail.com
M Misirlioglu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the effects of 3 T magnetic field on microleakage of amalgam restorations containing three different types of silver (Ag).

methods60 extracted teeth were restored with three different types of amalgam filling materials. Restored teeth were sectioned mesiodistally and divided into experimental and control groups. Experimental groups were exposed to a magnetic field of 3 T for 20 min. All samples were plunged into 2% basic fuchsin solution and examined under a digital microscope by three different observers with regard to microleakage.

resultsStatistical analysis showed significant differences in microleakage between the groups exposed to MRI and controls, whereas differences in microleakage between amalgam types were insignificant.

conclusionsThe primary risk of MRI systems arises from the effects of its strong magnetic field on objects containing ferromagnetic materials. An MRI of 1.5 T is known to be safe for amalgam restorations. However, our research indicates that MRI is not completely devoid of any effects on amalgam restorations.

Indexed as

Dental Restoration, PermanentColoring AgentsDental AmalgamDental Cavity PreparationDental EnamelDental LeakageDentinHumansMagnetic FieldsMagnetic Resonance ImagingRosaniline DyesSilverTime Factorsbasic fuchsinColoring AgentsDental AmalgamRosaniline DyesSilveramalgamdental fillingmicroleakageMRIMRI safety

Identifiers

PMID23674614
PMCPMC3756742

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.