Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35564356›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Influence of Matrix Type on Marginal Gap Formation of Deep Class II Bulk-Fill Composite Restorations.

Britta Hahn, Imme Haubitz, Ralf Krug, Gabriel Krastl, Sebastian Soliman

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 19% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Britta HahnDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital Würzburg, Pleicherwall 2, 97070 Würzburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1968-8453
Imme HaubitzDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital Würzburg, Pleicherwall 2, 97070 Würzburg, Germany.
Ralf KrugDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital Würzburg, Pleicherwall 2, 97070 Würzburg, Germany.
Gabriel KrastlDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital Würzburg, Pleicherwall 2, 97070 Würzburg, Germany.
Sebastian SolimanDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University Hospital Würzburg, Pleicherwall 2, 97070 Würzburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-0887-9550
Universitätsklinikum Würzburg · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: To test the hypothesis that transparent matrices result in more continuous margins of bulk-fill composite (BFC) restorations than metal matrices. Methods: Forty standardized MOD cavities in human molars with cervical margins in enamel and dentin were created and randomly assigned to four restorative treatment protocols: conventional nanohybrid composite (NANO) restoration (Tetric EvoCeram, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) with a metal matrix (NANO-METAL) versus transparent matrix (NANO-TRANS), and bulk-fill composite restoration (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein) with a metal matrix (BFC-METAL) versus transparent matrix (BFC-TRANS). After artificial aging (2500 thermal cycles), marginal quality was evaluated by scanning electron microscopy using the replica technique. Statistical analyses were performed using the Mann−Whitney U-test and Wilcoxon test. The level of significance was p < 0.05. Results: Metal matrices yielded significantly (p = 0.0011) more continuous margins (46.211%) than transparent matrices (27.073%). Differences in continuous margins between NANO (34.482%) and BFC (38.802%) were not significant (p = 0.56). Matrix type did not influence marginal gap formation in BFC (p = 0.27) but did in NANO restorations (p = 0.001). Conclusion: Metal matrices positively influence the marginal quality of class II composite restorations, especially in deep cavity areas. The bulk-fill composite seems to be less sensitive to the influence of factors such as light polymerization and matrix type.

Indexed as

Composite ResinsMolarDental Restoration, PermanentHumansLiechtensteinMicroscopy, Electron, ScanningPolymerizationComposite Resinsbulk-fill techniquecentripetal techniqueclass II restorationmarginal gap formationmetal matrixSEMtransparent matrix

Identifiers

PMID35564356
PMCPMC9099621
OpenAlexW4224210208

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.