ArticleDentistry journal2024
The Evaluation of the Cervical Marginal Sealing of Direct vs. Indirect Composite Resin Restorations in MOD Cavities.
Article in Dentistry journal, 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Cariogenic Risk Modifies the Effect of Marginal Adaptation on Caries Adjacent to Posterior Composite Restorations: A Stratified Multivariate Analysis.Clinics and practice · 2026Article
- The impact of preparation dimensions and material choice on stress distribution in MOD inlays: a 3D finite element study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Interfacial Effects Between Dental Impression and Die Materials and Their Role in the Internal Fit of Indirect Resin-Based Composite Restorations.Dentistry journal · 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionThe aim of this in vitro study was to compare the quality of marginal sealing at the cervical margins of indirect and direct composite resin restorations in mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) cavities. MATERIAL AND
methodMOD preparations were performed on 30 extracted teeth. The mesial cervical margin of each tooth was relocated using a flow composite resin (Enamel Plus HRi Flow, Micerium, Avegno, GE, Italy), then the samples were divided into three groups. In group A, the cavities were directly restored using a nanohybrid composite resin (Miris 2 Coltène Whaledent, Altstaetten, Switzerland) and a universal adhesive (ScotchBond Universal, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) by the etch-and-rinse strategy, for group B, the restoration procedure was similar but the self-etch strategy was used, and the samples in group C were filled using the inlay technique. Each sample was stored for 48 h in a 2% methylene blue solution, then it was cut in a mesio-distal direction using a Struers Secotom 50 device (Cleveland, OH, USA). The marginal sealing and adhesive interface were assessed for each sample at the cervical margin by optical microscopy (OM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). One-way ANOVA and Bonferroni post-hoc tests were used with a significance level of 0.05.
resultsSignificant differences were recorded within groups A and C, between mesial and distal margins (
conclusionsThe marginal sealing is more effective in MOD inlay restoration compared to direct restorations. Relocation of the cervical margin with flow composite resin and the use of different adhesive strategies do not improve the marginal sealing.
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.