ArticlePolymers2023
Comparison of Shear Bond Strength and Microleakage between Activa™ Bioactive Restorative™ and Bulk-Fill Composites-An In Vitro Study.
Article in Polymers, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Finite Element Analysis of Stress Concentration in Class V Lower Premolar Cavities Differently Restored by Adhesive Dental Materials.European journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Effect of bioactive and conventional liners on marginal sealing and dentin bond strength of Class V resin composite restorations: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Effect of Ozone on Adhesion of Pediatric Bioactive Restorative MaterialsActa stomatologica Croatica · 2026Article
- Can lasers replace conventional methods in optimizing bond strength of bioactive materials?Lasers in medical science · 2025Article
- Shear Bond Strength of Biointeractive Restorative Materials to NeoMTA Plus and Biodentine.Polymers · 2025Article
- Elemental and micromorphological analysis of ion releasing restoration/carious dentin interface.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparative analysis of shear bond strength and debonding characteristics of bioactive versus conventional orthodontic adhesives: An in-vitro study.The Saudi dental journal · 2025Article
- Effect of Different Primers on the Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets Bonded to Reinforced Polyetheretherketone (PEEK) Substrate.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bioactive materials have emerged as a promising alternative to conventional restorative materials as part of more conservative dentistry. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the shear bond strength (SBS) and microleakage of a new bioactive restorative material, two bulk-fill restorative composites, and a conventional composite at 24 h, 4 weeks, and 8 weeks. Three hundred and sixty molars and premolars were divided into four groups: ACTIVA™ BioACTIVE Restorative™, Filtek™ Bulk-Fill Restorative Composite, Tetric
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.