ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Effect of laser bleaching, ultrasonic scaling and powered tooth brushing on surface roughness and bacterial adherence of class V composite restorations.
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 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical performance and cost-effectiveness of low-shrinkage giomer resin composite versus resin-modified glass ionomer in cervical carious lesions: a 12-month randomized controlled trial.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Assessment of toothbrushing, bleaching pen and bleaching mouthwash in removing stains from tooth structure and single-shade resin composite.Scientific reports · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To evaluate and compare the effect of diode laser assisted bleaching, ultrasonic scaling and powered tooth brushing on surface roughness and bacterial adherence on class V cavities restored with composites. Materials and methods: A total of one hundred and twenty samples (40 samples each of Brilliant Everglow, Beautifil II and Heytec-N) were prepared in standardized stainless steel molds. The samples were further subdivided into four subgroups i.e. one control group (without any intervention) and three experimental groups - diode laser assisted bleaching, ultrasonic scaling and powered tooth brushing consisting of 10 sample each. Surface roughness was measured quantitatively with the help of 3D Optical Profilometer. For bacterial adherence analysis Results: Diode laser bleaching caused a significant increase in surface roughness and bacterial adherence with lowest mean change exhibited by Heytec-N followed by Beautifil II and highest by Brilliant Everglow group. Similarly, Ultrasonic scaling increased the surface roughness of all the three tested samples with significant difference between the groups. Powered tooth brushing had no effect on the surface roughness and bacterial adherence of the tested composites. Conclusion: Diode assisted laser bleaching and ultrasonic caused significantly higher surface roughness and bacterial adherence values for all the tested composites. It may therefore be recommended to do finishing and polishing of restorations after such procedures.
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.