ArticlePeerJ2021
Comparison of microleakage between different restorative materials to restore marginal gap at crown margin.
Article in PeerJ, 2021. 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.
- Impact of Thermomechanical Aging on Marginal Fit and Fracture Resistance of CAD/CAM Endocrowns Fabricated from Different Materials.Polymers · 2026Article
- Marginal and internal fit accuracy of single-crown restorations: the impact of digital and conventional impression techniques.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Measuring the Marginal Gap of Pre-Cemented All-Metal Single Crowns: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- Microleakage in fiber-reinforced versus conventional composite restorations.Dental research journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAn occurrence of secondary caries around the indirect restoration margin is reported to remain a leading cause of failures.
objectiveThis study aimed to test the interfacial microleakage of conventional glass-ionomer (CGI), resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) and Nano-hybrid composite (CR) restorations at a full veneer margin crown.
methodsNinety human extracted molar teeth were divided into three groups (
resultsCGI-G1 recorded the highest micro-leakage score at 1.450; while CR-G3 recorded the least score (0.350). At a cementum-restoration interface, CR-G1 (0.850) documented the lowest micro-leakage; RMGI-G3 had a greater value at 1.700.
conclusionsThe hybrid CR could be effectively used to restore the restoration of a marginal gap around crown margins.
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.