Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38157280›Full record

ArticleEuropean endodontic journal2024

Comparison of Reverse Sandwich Restorations Versus Composite Fillings for the Restoration of External Cervical Resorptions: An In-Vitro Study.

Thilla Sekar Vinothkumar, Krisha Doshi, Nivedhitha Malli Sureshbabu, Jayalakshmi Somasundaram, Anandhi Sekar Arthisri, Frank C Setzer, Venkateshbabu Nagendrababu

Open access · diamondAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European endodontic journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 35% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. [Research progress on external cervical resorption].Zhejiang da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Zhejiang University. Medical sciences · 2026
    Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Thilla Sekar VinothkumarDepartment of Restorative Dental Sciences, Division of Operative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia.
Krisha DoshiDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha University, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Chennai, India.
Nivedhitha Malli SureshbabuDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha University, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Chennai, India.
Jayalakshmi SomasundaramDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha University, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Chennai, India.
Anandhi Sekar ArthisriDepartment of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Meenakshi Ammal Dental College and Hospital, Meenakshi Academy of Higher Education and Research (MAHER), Chennai, India; Centre of Molecular Medicine and Diagnostics (COMManD), Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai, India.
Frank C SetzerDepartment of Endodontics, School of Dental Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Venkateshbabu NagendrababuDepartment of Preventive and Restorative Dentistry, University of Sharjah, College of Dental Medicine, Sharjah, UAE.
Saveetha University · INJazan University · SAUniversity of Pennsylvania · USUniversity of Sharjah · AE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe aim was to compare the 'reverse sandwich restoration' to resin composite restorations re- garding marginal adaptation, fracture resistance, favourable/unfavourable fractures in the management of external cervical resorption.

methodsForty-eight extracted maxillary central incisors were selected and endodontically treated. Cervical regions of the labial root surfaces received simulated resorptive defects and were restored as three randomly allocated groups: Reverse Sandwich Restoration (resin composite + resin-modified glass ionomer) (RSR); resin composite restoration (COMP), and no restoration (NR). Each group was further divided into two subgroups (n=8 each): Thermomechanical Aging (TA) (equivalent to one year) and No Aging (NA). Marginal adaptation was scored by scanning electron microscopy. Fracture resistance was tested using a universal testing machine. Favourable versus unfavourable fractures were classified based on fracture extent.

resultsTA decreased the marginal adaptation for both RSR and COMP. Mean fracture resistance per groups were: RSR-NA 1522.4+-94.9N, RSR-TA 939.6+-72.9N, COMP-NA 1197.6+-95.7N, COMP-TA 870.4+-86.3N, NR-NA 1057.1+-88.1N, and NR-TA 836.6+-81.9N, respectively. Fracture resistance was the highest for RSR- NA compared to all other groups (p<0.05). TA decreased the fracture resistance in all groups (p<0.05), there was no significant difference between RSR and COMP regarding fracture resistance and favourable/ unfavourable fractures (p>0.05).

conclusionRSR provided comparable results to resin composite fillings to restore artificial cervical defects pertaining to marginal adaptation, fracture resistance, and favourable versus unfavourable fractures. RSR is preferable due to its inherent biocompatibility to the periodontium. (EEJ-2023-04-050).

Indexed as

Composite ResinsDental Restoration, PermanentComposite Resins

Identifiers

PMID38157280
PMCPMC10777083
OpenAlexW4390427301

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.