ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Comparative evaluation of microleakage and hardness of newer posterior restorative materials.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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 Immediate and Delayed Finishing and Polishing on the Surface Roughness and Microhardness of Alkasite and Giomer.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Review
- Comparative evaluation of compressive strength among different glass ionomer cements.Bioinformation · 2025Article
- Effect of the Different Dietary Supplements on the Average Surface Roughness and Color Stability of Direct Restorative Materials Used in Pediatric Dentistry.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Microhardness and flexural strenght of resins for the posterior sector:Revista cientifica odontologica (Universidad Cientifica del Sur)Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The physical properties of restorative materials are critical when restoring posterior teeth. Restorative materials are continuously evolving in the quest for creating long lasting restorations. Aim and objective: To compare and evaluate microleakage and hardness of three different posterior restorative materials: Cention N, Zirconomer Improved and Solare Sculpt. Materials and methods: For micro leakage evaluation, 40 extracted human third molars were randomly divided into three experimental groups of 10 teeth each and two control group of 5 teeth each. Standardized box shaped class II cavity preparation was done in Group I, II, III and V. In Group V, cavity was prepared but left unrestored. No cavities were prepared in Group IV. Cavities in Group I, II, and III were restored with Cention N, Zirconomer Improved, Solare Sculpt respectively. Teeth were thermocycled together for 500 cycles. All the samples were placed in 2% methylene blue for 24 h. Microleakage evaluation was done using stereomicroscope. For hardness evaluation ten standardized discs of each material were prepared and evaluated using vicker's hardness test. Results: All the groups showed some amount of microleakage. The mean micro-leakage score was significantly more among Group II compared to Group I. There was no significant difference in mean micro-leakage score between Groups I and III Conclusion: No material was able to completely eliminate microleakage. Cention N showed high hardness among the materials tested.
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.