ArticleJournal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran)2020
The Effect of Occlusal Loading on Gingival Microleakage of Bulk Fill Composites Compared with a Conventional Composite.
Article in Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Microleakage Evaluation of Two Methacrylate-Based Composites (GC Kalore and Luna SDI) in Class II Restorations: A Laboratory Study.International journal of biomaterials · 2022Article
- The effect of preprocedural mouthrinses against COVID-19 before acid etching on the microleakage of a resin-based sealant in permanent molars: AnJournal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
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
statement of the problemBulk fill composites have been introduced over the recent years in order to accelerate the process of tooth restoration by inserting composite in bulk up to 4mm thickness. Occlusal loading may influence the gingival microleakage of this composite. PURPOSE: This MATERIALS AND
methodIn this experimental study, box only class II cavities with gingival margins placed 1mm below the cemento-enamel junction were prepared on the mesial and distal surfaces of 36 maxillary premolars (72 cavities). The samples were divided into three groups and restored as follows: Group 1 (Tetric N-Ceram, incremental filling), Group 2 (X-tra fill, bulk filling), Group 3 (Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill, bulk filling). All restorations were thermocycled for 2000 cycles (5-50̊C) and then half of the samples were subjected to 200,000 cycles of loading. All the specimens were immersed in 0.5% basic fuchsin for 48 hours, then, sectioned, and evaluated for microleakage with a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests.
resultsThere were no significant differences among the gingival microleakage of three composites in both unloaded and loaded groups. In addition, no statistically significant difference was found between the microleakage of unloaded and loaded groups in all materials.
conclusionOcclusal loading did not affect the gingival microleakage of bulk fill composites, and the microleakage of class II cavities restored with the bulk filling technique was similar to that of restored with the incremental technique.
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.