ArticleContemporary clinical dentistry
Comparative Evaluation of Marginal Integrity of Three Esthetic Restorative Materials - An
Article in Contemporary clinical dentistry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Characteristics of Interface Zone Between Glass-Based Restorative Materials and Sound and Caries-Affected Primary Dentine.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Evaluation of the Clinical Performance of Strip Crown Restorations with Composite Resin vs Glass Hybrid Restorative System for Primary Anterior Teeth of Children with Early Childhood Caries: A Double-blind Parallel Group Randomized Controlled Trial.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2025Article
- Article
- Comparison of Shear Bond Strength and Microleakage between Activa™ Bioactive Restorative™ and Bulk-Fill Composites-An In Vitro Study.Polymers · 2023Article
- Clinical Performance of Zirconia Reinforced versus Conventional Viscous Glass Ionomer in Class I Cavities of Geriatric Patients: A 1-year Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.Contemporary clinical 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextMicroleakage is the major cause for the failure of dental restorations, especially in Class V cavities, as margins of such restorations are generally located in dentin or cementum. Microleakage evaluation is necessary as a means of evaluation of the marginal integrity of restorative materials. This would assist in developing techniques and materials that would reduce damage caused by the failure of the restorative marginal seal.
aimThe aim of this study is to analyze and compare the marginal integrity among three esthetic restorative materials, namely GC Fuji II LC, GC G-Aenial anterior composite resin, and GC Equia forte fil. SETTING AND
designSixty orthodontically extracted caries-free premolar teeth with Class V restorations were divided into three groups. Microleakage was measured using an ordinal scale of 0-4, as given by Khera and Chan, in increasing order of dye penetration, which was observed under a microscope. MATERIALS AND
methodsStudy was conducted in sound human extracted premolars in which Standardized Class V cavities were prepared. Teeth were randomly and equally assigned to three groups (GC Fuji II LC, GC G-Aenial anterior composite resin, and GC Equia forte fil). Teeth were sectioned longitudinally into two halves using diamond discs and the sectioned halves of the teeth were evaluated for dye penetration under stereomicroscope. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Intergroup comparison of mean dye penetration scores were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test along with RESULTS AND
conclusionAll the three groups (GC Fuji II LC, GC G-Aenial anterior composite resin, and GC Equia forte fil) tested showed microleakage at the tooth restoration interface. It was evident that microleakage was found to be highest with the Fuji II LC, both at occlusal and cervical levels. GC Equia forte exhibited the best performance in limiting microleakage around the restoration 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.