ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2019
Evaluation of Marginal Adaptation and Microleakage of Three Glass Ionomer-Based Class V Restorations: In Vitro Study.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 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
21 citing papers in PubMed.
- A two-year randomized clinical trial of bulk-fill and ion-releasing composites with universal adhesives in class V carious lesions.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Trial
- In Vitro Comparison Between Different Types of Fissure Sealants in Permanent Teeth-Micro-CT Study.Polymers · 2026Article
- Do Different Durations of Hyperbaric Oxygen Therapy Affect the Microleakage of Bulk-Fill Composites?Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Determination of the Degree of Penetration of Glass Ionomer Cements in the Healthy and Decayed Dentine of Permanent Molars.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Microleakage and Micromorphological Analysis of Different Self-Adhesive Restorative Systems in Class V Cavities: Laboratory Study.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Article
- Does different application modes of universal adhesives with universal resin composites affect the microleakage in class V cavities? An in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Elemental analysis and micromorphological patterns of tooth/restoration interface of three ion-releasing class V restorations.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Microhardness and elemental analysis of ion-releasing restoration/ dentin interface following enzymatic chemomechanical caries excavation.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Comparison of Reverse Sandwich Restorations Versus Composite Fillings for the Restoration of External Cervical Resorptions: An In-Vitro Study.European endodontic journal · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Bioactive Restorative Materials' Color Stability: Effect of Immersion Media and Thermocycling.Cureus · 2023Article
- Microshear Bond Strength of Bioactive Materials to Dentin and Resin Composite.European journal of dentistry · 2023Article
- Comparison of Shear Bond Strength and Microleakage between Activa™ Bioactive Restorative™ and Bulk-Fill Composites-An In Vitro Study.Polymers · 2023Article
- Evaluation of the Effect of Nanographene Oxide on Microleakage of Conventional and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer.International journal of dentistry · 2023Article
- Marginal integrity of classical and bulk-fill composite restorations in permanent and primary molars.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- In vitro marginal and internal adaptation of four different base materials used to elevate proximal dentin gingival margins.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2022Article
- Marginal microleakage and modified microtensile bond strength of Activa Bioactive, in comparison with conventional restorative materials.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2022Article
- Systematic Review on White Spot Lesions Treatments.European journal of dentistry · 2022Article
- Microleakage of Direct Restorations-Comparisonbetween Bulk-Fill and Traditional Composite Resins:Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.European journal of dentistry · 2021Article
- Effect of Saliva Contamination on Microleakage of Open Sandwich Restorations.Acta stomatologica Croatica · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the marginal adaptation and microleakage of class V cavities restored with conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC), resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), and bioactive ionic resin (BIR) restorative materials after 6 months of water storage. MATERIALS AND
methodsOne hundred twenty standardized class V cavities (2 mm deep, 4 mm in width, and 3 mm in height) were prepared in sound extracted human molar teeth, where the coronal margins were in enamel while the cervical margins were in dentin. Three glass ionomer-based restorations were tested ( STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The outcomes were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney
resultsNo statistically significant differences were observed among the three studied restorative materials. However, the differences were statistically significant in microleakage test between enamel and dentin and after water aging.
conclusionAll tested restorative materials exhibited the same marginal adaptation and microleakage. Dentin substrate revealed greater microleakage than enamel, especially with BIR restorative material. Water aging had a negative effect on RMGI with respect to microleakage.
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.