ArticleScientific reports2019
Investigations on the adhesion of new composites for restoring cervical lesions using energy dispersive X-ray analysis and scanning electron microscopy.
Article in Scientific reports, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- In Vitro Study on the Adhesive Performance of Some Resin-Based Materials Used to Restore Class II Cavities.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Restoration of noncarious cervical lesions with resin composites is one of the treatment options, but the retention of the restorations located at the crown-root junction is still a cause of clinical concern. The aim of this study was to evaluate the adhesive properties of three experimental resin composites and two commercial materials used to restore cavities prepared on extracted teeth as well as to determine the relative elemental composition of these materials. We tested the null hypothesis, which considered that the adhesive behaviours of different resin composites did not differ. The microleakage test using tracers showed that all tested materials exhibited some degree of dentinal microleakage, although they all had good dentinal adhesion. The results failed to reject the null hypothesis. The scanning electron microscopy revealed completely adapted adhesive interfaces underneath the restorations along with well-developed hybrid layers depending on the adhesive system. Energy dispersive X-ray analysis analyses showed that the restorative materials have similar chemical compositions, with some differences between the samples from the same material. The results support the implementation of experimental resins in clinical settings.
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.