Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27376544›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2017

Clinical evaluation of composite restorations in Er:YAG laser-prepared cavities re-wetting with chlorhexidine.

Daniel Galafassi, Camila Scatena, Rodrigo Galo, Fabiana Almeida Curylofo-Zotti, Silmara Aparecida Milori Corona, Maria Cristina Borsatto

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

6 authors.

Daniel GalafassiDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Meridional College-IMED, Senador Pinheiro, 304, Cruzeiro, Passo Fundo, Rio Grande do Sul, RS, 99070-220, Brazil.
Camila ScatenaDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Serra Gaucha College-FSG, Os Dezoito do Forte 2366, São Pelegrino, Caxias do Sul, Rio Grande do Sul, RS, 95020-472, Brazil.
Rodrigo GaloDentistry Department, Federal University of Jequitinhonha and Mucuri Valleys, Diamantina, MG, Brazil.
Fabiana Almeida Curylofo-ZottiRestorative Dentistry Department, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry, São Paulo University, Café Avenue, Monte Alegre, Ribeirão Preto, SP, 14040-904, Brazil.
Silmara Aparecida Milori CoronaRestorative Dentistry Department, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry, São Paulo University, Café Avenue, Monte Alegre, Ribeirão Preto, SP, 14040-904, Brazil.
Maria Cristina BorsattoClinical Pediatric Dentistry Department, Ribeirão Preto School of Dentistry, São Paulo University, Café Avenue, s/n, Monte Alegre, Ribeirão Preto, SP, 14040-904, Brazil. borsatto@forp.usp.br.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe objective of this study was to evaluate longitudinally the composite restorations, performed in cavities prepared by Er:YAG or conventional bur, and dentin re-wetting with water or chlorhexidine. MATERIALS AND

methodsTwenty individuals with four active caries with cavitation reaching the dentin located on the occlusal surface of molars counterparts are selected. The teeth of each individual were randomly assigned into four groups: (I) Er:YAG laser (260 mJ/4 Hz) re-wetting with chlorhexidine, (II) Er:YAG laser (260 mJ/4 Hz) re-wetting with deionized water, (III) conventional method re-wetting with chlorhexidine, and (IV) conventional method re-wetting with deionized water. The teeth were isolated, prepared cavities, phosphoric acid etching, and re-wetting according to previously assigned method. Restoration was performed employing the Single Bond 2 and Z350XT resin. Clinical follow-up was held after the polishing of the restoration (baseline) and 6 and 12 months of the making of the restoration using the modified USPHS criteria. The restorations were qualitatively analyzed by means of photographs. In the evaluation period, replicas of the restorations were analyzed by SEM. Data were analyzed by statistics using chi-square test (p < 0.05).

resultsAfter 12 months of clinical evaluation, groups prepared with laser and re-wetting with chlorhexidine and water showed the lowest marginal staining value. There was no statistical difference between the groups for other factors. SEM analysis revealed that a non-expressive amount of restorations showed gaps and irregularities of tooth-restoration interface after 6 and 12 months compared to the baseline.

conclusionThe restorations performed in laser-prepared cavities, regardless of the re-wetting, presented the best clinical performance over the evaluated period. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Laser-prepared teeth, regardless of re-wetting, showed greater resistance to marginal discoloration.

Indexed as

Acid Etching, DentalChildChlorhexidineComposite ResinsDental CariesDental Cavity PreparationDental CementsFemaleHumansLasers, Solid-StateLight-Curing of Dental AdhesivesMaleMicroscopy, Electron, ScanningTreatment OutcomeWaterWettabilityAdper single bond 2ChlorhexidineComposite ResinsDental Cementsfiltek Z350WaterAdhesives systemsEr:YAG laserMarginal integrityRe-wetting

Identifiers

PMID27376544

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.