Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32581481›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry

A Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Toughness of Composite Resin vs Protemp 4 for Use in Strip Crowns: An

K C Vignesh, Eswar Kandaswamy, M S Muthu

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 22% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

K C VigneshCentre for Early Childhood Caries Research (CECCRe), Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Sciences, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research (Deemed to be University), Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Eswar KandaswamyCentre for Early Childhood Caries Research (CECCRe), Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Sciences, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research (Deemed to be University), Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
M S MuthuCentre for Early Childhood Caries Research (CECCRe), Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Sciences, Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research (Deemed to be University), Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
Sri Ramachandra Institute of Higher Education and Research · IN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThe aim of this study was to compare the fracture toughness of pedo shade packable composite resin (Z100, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, USA) vs Protemp 4 (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany) when used inside a strip crown to restore primary incisors. MATERIALS AND

methodsThirty-six exfoliated noncarious human primary central and lateral incisors were randomly divided into two equal groups. The teeth were prepared to standardized dimensions to receive a strip crown. All the teeth were etched, rinsed, and dried following which bonding agent was applied and light cured. In group I, pedo shade packable composite resin (Z100, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, USA) was packed into strip crowns, placed on the prepared tooth, and light cured. In group II, the strip crowns were filled with Protemp 4 (3M ESPE, Seefeld, Germany), placed on the prepared tooth, and left to autopolymerize for 10 minutes. The strip crowns were removed, and the teeth were tested using the universal testing machine until fracture. Fracture toughness of the two groups was recorded and analyzed statistically using Student's "

resultsThe mean force required to fracture strip crowns restored with Protemp 4 (416.89 ± 124.58 N) was higher when compared with pedo shade packable composite resin (338.27 ± 130.99 N). However, statistical analysis did not show a significant difference in the fracture toughness between the two groups (

conclusionThe fracture toughness of teeth restored with Protemp 4 was comparable with pedo shade packable composite resin when used inside a strip crown. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The use of Protemp 4 is a possible alternative to pedo shade packable composite resin in restoring the primary anterior teeth, when used inside the strip crowns. The data also showed that the fracture toughness of Protemp 4 was comparable with pedo shade packable composite resin. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Vignesh KC, Kandaswamy E, Muthu MS. A Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Toughness of Composite Resin vs Protemp 4 for Use in Strip Crowns: An

Indexed as

Composite resinFracture toughnessPrimary incisorsProtemp 4Strip crowns

Identifiers

PMID32581481
PMCPMC7299896
OpenAlexW3023865219

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.