ArticleBMC oral health2022
Effect of contamination of bulk-fill flowable resin composite with different contaminants during packing on its surface microhardness and compressive strength: in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of polymerization behaviors, microhardness and compressive strength between bulk-fill resin and dual-cured core resin.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- In Vitro Evaluation of Mechanical, Surface, and Optical Properties of Restorative Materials Applied with Different Techniques.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Article
- The influence of salivary contamination during light curing on degree of conversion and color stability of two composite resins.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundProper isolation and restoration of class V subgingival cavities are technique sensitive, thus the resin composite restoration is liable to contamination. This in vitro study was conducted to evaluate the surface microhardness and compressive strength of bulk-fill flowable resin composite after being contaminated during its packing.
methodsResin composite discs were prepared using split mold. The contaminated specimens were allocated into four groups (n = 20) according to the contaminant used: hemostatic agent (Group 1), alcohol (Group 2), artificial saliva (Group 3) and powdered gloves (Group 4). The non-contaminated specimens (n = 20) were used as control group. The surface microhardness and compressive strength of each group were tested 1-day post-photocuring (n = 5) and 1 month post-photocuring (n = 5). Values were presented as mean, standard deviation values and confidence intervals.
resultsThe surface microhardness of all groups didn't show a significant difference for different tested groups except for alcohol which showed a significant reduction on surface microhardness compared to control at 1 day post-photocuring (p = 0.001). The highest compressive strength mean values at 1 day and 1 month post-photocuring were recorded in control groups (110.42 MPa and 172.87 MPa respectively), followed by alcohol groups, then hemostatic agent groups, followed by artificial saliva with the least value recorded in powdered gloves groups (56.71 MPa and 49.5 MPa respectively).
conclusionsContamination of bulk-fill flowable resin composite with hemostatic agent, alcohol, artificial saliva, or powdered gloves during its packing decreased its compressive strength after 1 month post-photocuring rather than affecting its surface microhardness.
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.