ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Internal Adaptation of Composite Fillings Made Using Universal Adhesives-A Micro-Computed Tomography Analysis.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of Four Universal Adhesive Protocols for the Internal Adaptation of Composite Restorations in Primary Teeth: An In Vitro Micro-CT Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Three-Dimensional Micro-CT Assessment of Radiopacity and Intra-Cavity Distribution of Universal Adhesives.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The evaluation of internal adaptation of glass ionomer restorations applied after the use of different cavity conditioners in primary teeth: an in-vitro study.BMC oral health · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate internal tooth-filling interfaces of composite fillings made using universal adhesives using micro-computed tomography (µCT). Sixty class V cavities were randomly assigned into six groups: Peak Universal etch and rinse (PER), Peak Universal self-etch (PSE), Adhese Universal etch and rinse (AER), and Adhese Universal self-etch (ASE). Two further adhesives considered gold standards were used as control groups: OptiBond FL (OER) for the etch and rinse technique and Clearfil SE for the self-etch technique (CSE). All teeth were subjected to thermomechanical loading and four-year water storage. Next, they were analyzed using µCT to investigate the internal tooth-filling interfaces. The proportions between the gap volume (GV) at the tooth-filling interface and the volume of applied composite filling (FV), between the gap and cavity volumes (CV), and between the gap volumes at the tooth-filling interface of the external (EGV) and internal (IGV) parts were calculated. Adhese Universal achieved the significantly lowest gap-to-filling- and gap-to-cavity-volume ratios for both types of etching techniques comparing to those of the Peak Universal and control groups. Significant differences between the gaps in external and internal parts of the tooth-filling interface were only noted in the control groups. Internal gap formation and development at the tooth-filling interface depend on the material as well as the type of its application.
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.