ArticleJournal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR2014
Effect of Air Abrasion Preconditioning on Microleakage in Class V Restorations Under Cyclic Loading: An In-vitro Study.
Article in Journal of clinical and diagnostic research : JCDR, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMicroleakage in class V Glass Ionomer Cement(GIC) or composite restorations at enamel or cementum margins has been cited as a reason for their failure. Air abrasion has been used to precondition tooth surface for increasing retention of such restorations. This study is done to evaluate the effect of preconditioning with air abrasion on microleakage in class V GIC and composite restorations. MATERIALS AND
methodsClass V cavities were prepared in 40 freshly extracted teeth. They were categorised into following four groups (n=10) depending on cavity preconditioning and restoration. Group I: 10% polyacrylic acid and GI (Ketac molar TM 3M ESPE); Group II: AA and GI; Group III: 35% Phosphoric acid and micro filled composite (MC) (Heliomolar, Ivoclar Vivadent); Group IV: AA and MC. Each group was further divided into subgroups A (no loading) & B (cyclic loading). Microleakage at occlusal and gingival margins was evaluated using methylene blue dye penetration method. Statistical analysis was done using Kruskal-wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test.
resultsMicroleakage at cementum margins was higher than at enamel margins in all the groups. Preconditioning with AA resulted in increased micro leakage.
conclusionAA as a preconditioning agent was ineffective in producing superior tooth-restoration bonding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.