ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry : JCD
A comparative study on microleakage of two low shrinkage composite materials in Class II cavities: A stereomicroscopic analysis.
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry : JCD. 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.
- Decoding marginal adaptation and microleakage: A field emission scanning electron microscopy and stereomicroscopic evaluation of cavity liners under class II composite restorations.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Comparative evaluation of cervical microleakage in class II composite restorations using different liner and placement techniques: AnJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025Article
- Stress Distribution Pattern in Class I Cavities Restored by Different Techniques According to the Stress Reducing Direct Composite Concept: A Finite Element Analysis.International journal of dentistry · 2025Article
- Comparative evaluation of microleakage in Class II cavities restored with snowplow technique using flowable or preheated packable bulk-fill composite resin as gingival increment by dye extraction method: AnJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2024Article
- Deep margin elevation in class II cavities: A comparative evaluation of microleakage and interface integrity using confocal laser microscopy and scanning electron microscopy.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2024Article
- The efficacy of lining materials in the reduction of microleakage in class II composite resin restoration using the sandwich technique: A stereomicroscopic study.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodonticsArticle
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
Aim: To compare the microleakage of Filtek bulk fill posterior and Beautifil II LS composites in Class II cavities using stereomicroscope. Materials and Methods: A total of 34 extracted teeth were randomly divided into two groups. Teeth were prepared and mounted on a plaster block. In each tooth, Class II cavities were prepared, following which the cavities were etched and bonded. In Group I, 17 teeth were restored with Filtek bulk fill posterior composite in bulk fill technique and in Group II, 17 teeth were restored with Beautifil II LS following manufacture's instructions. The samples were then thermocycled and then the tooth were immersed in 1% methylene blue for 24 h and were divided into two halves mesiodistally using a diamond disc at low speed. Then, all the sections were observed under a stereomicroscope at ×10 magnification. Results: Mann-Whitney U-test displayed a statistically significant higher mean rank among Filtek bulk fill group (mean rank = 23.09) when compared to Beautifil II LS composite group (mean rank = 11.91). Conclusion: The study concluded that in Class II restorations, Beautifil II LS showed significantly less microleakage than Filtek bulk fill posterior.
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.