ArticleDental research journal
Microbial microleakage assessment of class V cavities restored with different materials and techniques: A laboratory study.
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 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Microbial leakage and marginal adaptation of alkasite restorative material in Class II cavities: an in vitro study.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2026Article
- Effect of bioactive and conventional liners on marginal sealing and dentin bond strength of Class V resin composite restorations: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Effects of a Universal Adhesive System and the Snow-Plow Technique on Microleakage of Class II Composite Restorations in Primary Molars.Frontiers in dentistry · 2025Article
- Article
- Study on the Restoration of Class II Carious Cavities by Virtual Methods: Simulation of Mechanical Behavior.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Article
- Comparing nanoleakage between class II bulkfill and incremental composite restorations using snowplow technique.The Saudi dental journal · 2023Article
- Article
- Microleakage Evaluation in Class V Cavities Restored with Five Different Resin Composites: In vitro Dye Leakage Study.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2021Article
- Microleakage of an Enhanced Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Restorative Material in Primary Molars.Journal of dentistry (Tehran, Iran) · 2018Article
- Fracture resistance of pulpotomized and composite-restored primary molars: Incremental versus bulk-fill techniques.Dental research journalArticle
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare microbial microleakage of class V cavities restored with different materials and techniques using a microbial leakage assessment method. MATERIALS AND
methodsOne hundred extracted, caries-free, human maxillary premolars were randomly divided into five groups. Group 1: Resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), Group 2: Closed sandwich with flowable composite + nanohybrid composite, Group 3: Nanohybrid composite, Group 4: Closed sandwich with RMGI + nanohybrid composite, and Group 5: Flowable composite + nanohybrid composite that were co-cured together ("snow-plow" technique). A microbial penetration method utilizing
resultsThe log-rank test indicated a statistically significant difference in leakage rates among the five groups (
conclusionWith respect to the limitations of an
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.