ArticleDental research journal
Effect of cyclic loading on microleakage of silorane based composite compared with low shrinkage methacrylate-based composites.
Article in Dental research journal. 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.
- The Influence of Posterior Class II Composite Restoration Location and Techniques on Marginal Sealing.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Microleakage Evaluation of Two Methacrylate-Based Composites (GC Kalore and Luna SDI) in Class II Restorations: A Laboratory Study.International journal of biomaterials · 2022Article
- Clinical Steps for Restoration of Fractured Anterior Teeth: Color Protocol with Non-VITA Scale.Case reports in dentistry · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere are many concerns regarding the marginal seal of composite restorations, especially when composite restorations are subjected to cyclic loading. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of cyclic loading on the microleakage of silorane based composite compared with low shrinkage methacrylate-based composites in class V cavities. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this in vitro study, class V cavities were prepared on the facial and lingual surfaces of 48 human premolars (96 cavities). The teeth were randomly divided into four groups of 12 teeth (24 cavities) each and restored as follows: Group 1 (Siloran System Adhesive + Filtek P90), Group 2 (All Bond SE + Aelite LS Posterior), Group 3 (Futurabond NR + Grandio), and Group 4 (G-Bond + Kalore-GC). All the specimens were thermocycled for 2000 cycles (5-55°C) and then half of the specimens from each group, were Load cycled. All teeth were immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsine dye, sectioned, and observed under a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed using Wilcoxon test, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney U-tests. P < 0.05 was considered as significant.
resultsIn both unloaded and loaded groups, no statistically significant differences were observed among four composites at the occlusal margin, but a significant difference in gingival microleakage was found between Aelite and silorane. Occlusal and gingival microleakage was not affected by cyclic loading in none of the four restorative materials.
conclusionSilorane did not provide better marginal seal than the low shrinkage methacrylate-based composites (except Aelite). In addition, cyclic loading did not affect the marginal microleakage of evaluated composite 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.