ArticleOdontology2019
Demineralized enamel reduces margin integrity of self-etch, but not of etch-and-rinse bonded composite restorations.
Article in Odontology, 2019. 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.
- Composite restorations placed in non-carious cervical lesions-Which cavity preparation is clinically reliable?Clinical and experimental dental research · 2020Trial
- Decision tree protocol for demineralized gingival margin extension in class II composite cavity preparations.Journal of dental sciences · 2021Article
- Impact of Different Etching Strategies on Margin Integrity of Conservative Composite Restorations in Demineralized Enamel.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
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
The aim of this study was to investigate margin integrity of Class V composite restorations in demineralized and sound enamel after bonding with different etch-and-rinse and self-etch adhesive systems. Out of a total of 60 specimens from bovine incisors, 30 specimens were demineralized (21 days, acid buffer, pH 4.95) to create artificial enamel lesions. Circular Class V cavities were prepared in all 60 specimens and treated with either an unfilled etch-and-rinse adhesive (Syntac Classic; Ivoclar Vivadent), a filled etch-and-rinse adhesive (Optibond FL; Kerr), or a self-etch adhesive (iBond Self Etch; Heraeus) (n = 10 per group). The cavities were restored with a nanofilled resin composite and thermocycled (5000×, 5-55 °C). Scanning electron microscopy was used to evaluate margin integrity of the composite restorations, and the percentage of continuous margin was statistically analyzed (α = 0.05). Demineralized enamel led to a significantly lower margin integrity when the self-etch adhesive iBond Self Etch was applied, but did not affect margin integrity when the etch-and-rinse adhesives Optibond FL (filled) or Syntac Classic (unfilled) were used. No significant differences in margin integrity in sound and demineralized enamel were observed between the different adhesives. Demineralized enamel reduces margin integrity of composite restorations when bonded with a self-etch adhesive, but does not affect margin integrity when an etch-and-rinse approach is used.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30467810What 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.