ArticleCureus2023
Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage With Total-Etch, Universal (Self-Etch Mode), and Nano Adhesive Systems in Class V Composite Restorations: 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 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Evaluation of cuspal deflection and microleakage of an incrementally packed versus a low shrinkage bulk-fill nanohybrid resin composite: an in-vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Marginal microleakage at the adhesive bonding interface submitted to storage in water, chemical aging or thermocycling.European oral research · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Microleakage and Micromorphological Analysis of Different Self-Adhesive Restorative Systems in Class V Cavities: Laboratory Study.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Article
- Evaluation of microleakage in composite restorations with various adhesive systems: AnBioinformation · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe adhesion of bonding agents and their longevity are of interest to dentistry. Microleakage remains the major cause of composite restoration failures, which in turn depends on bonding between the restorative material and tooth substrate. The objective of this study is to evaluate and compare the microleakage with total-etch, universal, and nano adhesive systems in Class V composite restorations, utilizing a dye penetration method.
methodsForty-five extracted premolars were included in the present study, and a Class V cavity on the facial surface of each tooth was prepared. The samples were divided into three groups of 15 teeth each depending on the bonding agents used, following which composite restoration was done. Specimens were thermocycled, and nail varnish was applied except around the restorations. Specimens were then immersed in 2% methylene blue for 24 hours and rinsed; sectioning was done and viewed under a stereomicroscope with 10X magnification.
resultsThe mean microleakage score was reported to be significantly higher in the universal adhesive system in the self-etch mode (3.60 ± 0.55) when compared with the total-etch adhesive system (2.40 ± 0.55) and least in the nano adhesive system (1.20+.45) (p value <.05).
conclusionThe study findings revealed that nano adhesives showed lesser microleakage as compared to total-etch and universal adhesive systems. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The study strengthens the findings that the nano adhesives have reduced microleakage, resulting in better marginal integrity and increased longevity of restoration. This study signifies that an eighth-generation bonding agent is reported to be better than the other bonding agents used in this study.
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.