ArticleJournal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects2016
Effect of two prophylaxis methods on marginal gap of Cl Vresin-modified glass-ionomer restorations.
Article in Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Long-term effect of simulated five years professional mechanical biofilm removal on the luting gap of ceramic restorations.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- The Effect of Ultrasonic Scaling and Air-Powder Polishing on the Roughness of the Enamel, Three Different Nanocomposites, and Composite/Enamel and Composite/Cementum Interfaces.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Evaluation of Marginal Adaptation and Microleakage of Three Glass Ionomer-Based Class V Restorations: In Vitro Study.European journal of dentistry · 2019Article
- The effect of repeated preheating of dimethacrylate and silorane-based composite resins on marginal gap of class V restorations.Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects · 2017Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background. This study evaluated the effect of two prophylaxis techniques on the marginal gap of CI V resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations. Methods. Standard Cl V cavities were prepared on the buccal surfaces of 48 sound bovine mandibular incisors in this in vitro study. After restoration of the cavities with GC Fuji II LC resin-modified glass-ionomer, the samples were randomly assigned to 3 groups of 16. In group 1, the prophylactic procedures were carried out with rubber cup and pumice powder and in group 2 with air-powder polishing device (APD). In group 3 (control), the samples did not undergo any prophylactic procedures. Then the marginal gaps were measured. Two-way ANOVA was used to compare marginal gaps at the occlusal and gingival margins between the groups. Post hoc Tukey test was used for two-by-two comparisons. Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05. Results. There were significant differences in the means of marginal gaps in terms of prophylactic techniques (P < 0.001), with significantly larger marginal gaps in the APD group compared to the pumice and rubber cup group, which in turn exhibited significantly larger marginal gaps compared to the control group (P < 0.0005). In addition, the means of marginal gaps were significant in terms of the margin type (P < 0.001), with significantly larger gaps at gingival margins compared to the occlusal margins (P < 0.0005). Conclusion. The prophylactic techniques used in this study had a negative effect on the marginal gaps of Cl V resin-modified glass-ionomer restorations.
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.