ArticleCureus2023
Evaluation of Self-Adhesive Composite Restorations Bond on Primary Canines: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Self-Adhesive Flowable Resin Composites-Are We Going Somewhere?Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Review
- Adaptation and Bonding of Bulk-Fill Composites in Deep Preparations.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background and purpose The aesthetic requirements for the restoration of the primary anterior teeth of both the child and his parents increased recently, especially with the presence of materials with good mechanical properties capable of giving a good aesthetic shape. However, the challenge remains in the possibility of applying these materials to primary teeth, where the child's cooperation and ability to keep their mouth open during the completion of the restoration is an important challenge for the dentist. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the bonding of self-adhesive composite by studying the microleakage in primary canines. Materials and methods The studied sample consisted of 60 extracted primary canines that were divided into three equal groups (n=20) according to the type of restoration: group 1 (experimental) - self-adhesive composite alone, group 2 (experimental) - self-adhesive composite with selective enamel etching, and group 3 (control) - conventional composite with the self-etching bond and selective enamel etching. A Class V cavity was prepared at the cementoenamel junction, 2 mm deep and 1 mm in diameter. In this way, the gingival wall is dentine, while the incisal wall is enamel-dentine. Restorations were placed according to the group to which the tooth belongs. After that, all teeth were subjected to 500 cycles of thermocycling. Then, a methylene blue dye microleakage test was performed, and longitudinal sections of the teeth were made and studied under x20 magnification using a stereo microscope. Results In the gingival wall, the scores of microleakage in the conventional composite group after selective etching were lower than those of the self-adhesive composite groups, with a statistically significant difference. While in the incisal wall, there were no statistically significant differences in the frequencies of the scores of microleakage between the three groups. Conclusions Within the limitations of this study, the conventional composite bonded better to enamel and dentine than self-adhesive composite resin applied alone or after selective enamel etching. The bonding of the self-adhesive composite was lower than that of the conventional composite, and it is not recommended to use it in Class V restorations of primary anterior teeth.
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.