ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2020
In vitro evaluation of composite resin fluorescence after natural aging.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 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.
- Fluorescence in Direct Dental Resin-Based Composites and Natural Teeth: A Narrative Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Optimizing Ultraviolet Illumination for Detecting Fluorescent Orthodontic Adhesive Residues during Debonding Procedures.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Quantitative and Qualitative Assessment of Fluorescence in Aesthetic Direct Restorations.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Opalescence and color stability of composite resins: an in vitro longitudinal study.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSome composite resins contain luminophorous agents in order to reproduce tooth fluorescence. The objective of this study was to compare the fluorescence spectra emitted by composite resins with those of human enamel and dentin, and their emission behaviour after a 90-day natural aging period. MATERIAL AND
methodsNine shades of the composite resins Z350XT/3M (XT), Opallis/FGM (OP) and Empress Direct/Ivoclar-Vivadent (ED) were analyzed. Five specimens (10.0 mm x 2.0mm) were fabricated for each shade. Enamel (5.0 mm x 0.30 mm) and dentin (5.0 mm x 1.0 mm) specimens were obtained from sound human third molars. Fluorescence spectra of human dentin and enamel as well as the composite specimens immediately after fabrication were measured at the excitation peaks of 375, 395 and 410 nm. To assess composite resin fluorescence intensity changes over time, measurements were conducted after 30, 60 and 90 days, at 395 nm. Differences in fluorescence intensity over time were analyzed with ANOVA and Tukey's test (
resultsFluorescence spectra baseline values of composites demonstrated no differences in intensity among the excitation peaks tested, with maximum emission found at the peak of 450 nm. Enamel and dentin spectra varied with different excitations, and the greater the excitation, the longer the wavelength in comparison to composite resins. After 90 days, XT presented an increase in fluorescence intensity, while OP and ED showed a reduction when compared with baseline values.
conclusionsFluorescence intensity of composite resins changed during the period analyzed, with an emission behavior different from that of human enamel and dentin. The main changes occurred in the first 30 days.
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.