ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2022
Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage of Bioactive, Ormocer, and Conventional GIC Restorative Materials in Primary Molars: An In Vitro Study Microleakage of Three Restorative Materials.
Article in International journal of dentistry, 2022. 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.
- Effect of Brazilian red propolis on microtensile bond strength and sealing ability of the methacrylate-based bonding agents.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Class V Cavities Restored with Newer Bioactive Restorative Materials: Activa Bioactive Restorative and Activa Pronto.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2024Article
- Comparison between Different Bulk-Fill and Incremental Composite Materials Used for Class II Restorations in Primary and Permanent Teeth: In Vitro Assessments.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- A novel application of a bioactive material as a pit and fissure sealant: in vitro pilot study evaluating the sealing ability and penetration.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2023Article
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
This in vitro study aimed to evaluate and compare the microleakage of bioactive, ormocer, and conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorative materials in primary molars. In this study, class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surface of 75 noncarious extracted primary molars. The teeth were then restored as per the groups assigned. Group A, group B, and group C used bioactive restorative materials, ormocer restorative materials, and conventional GIC restorative materials for restorations, respectively. The teeth were then thermocycled and subjected to microleakage analysis via dye penetration. The microleakage scores were compared for differences using the Kruskal-Wallis test. This was followed by multiple pairwise comparisons using the Dunn test. All testing was carried out using a 'p' value of <0.05. The percentage of samples showing microleakage score 0 depicting no dye penetration was highest for group A (56%) followed by group C (44%) and group B (12%). Statistical analysis revealed highest microleakage with group B, which was statistically significant (
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.