ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2020
Penetration of Different Impression Materials into Exposed Dentinal Tubules during the Impression Procedure.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Water-Airborne-Particle Abrasion as a Pre-Treatment to Improve Bioadhesion and Bond Strength of Glass-Ceramic Restorations: From In Vitro Study to 15-Year Survival Rate.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Advances in Dental Materials "at a Glance."Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Influence of Dentine Pre-Treatment by Sandblasting with Aluminum Oxide in Adhesive Restorations. An In Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2020Article
- Fracture Resistance of Zirconia-Reinforced Lithium Silicate Ceramic Crowns Cemented with Conventional or Adhesive Systems: An In Vitro Study.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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adhesive restorations have been shown to guarantee excellent performance and longevity, although this comes with some disadvantages. Among these, the vulnerability of dentine to different agents has been widely evaluated. The aim of this study was to evaluate the possible penetration of impression materials into freshly cut dentine. Dentine from 27 teeth was impressed with polyether (Impregum Penta L) (nine teeth) and with polyvinyl siloxane (Aquasil Ultra LV) (nine teeth). The surface of nine teeth after the impressions were used as the control. Specifically, the extroflections caused by the imprinting of the dentinal tubules on the impression material, the so-called impression tags, were measured. Furthermore, the presence of the material inside the tubules was examined. Scanning electron microscopy analysis showed material tags for all of the experimental groups. The mean lengths (±SD) were 22.6 (±11.0) µm for polyether, 21.8 (±12.8) µm for polyvinyl siloxane and 11.3 (±7.0) µm for the tooth control, with mean diameters (±SD) of 2.8 (±0.5), 2.4 (±0.7) and 3.1 (±0.7) µm, respectively. Fractal analysis showed fractal dimensions of 1.78 (±0.03), 1.77 (±0.03) and 1.71 (±0.03), respectively. These data demonstrated that the impression materials can remain inside the dentinal tubules, which can adversely affect the adhesive procedures.
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.