ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2024
Comparative evaluation of microhardness of three restorative materials after immersion in chlorhexidine mouthwash: An
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 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 urethane dimethacrylate monomer elution between indirect composites when subjecting to thermocycling.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Effect of sugar and sweetener on the bleachability of coffee and tea-induced stains on composites: an in vitro experimental study.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2026Article
- Article
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
Aim: To evaluate and compare the microhardness of Filtek Z250XT, Beautifil II, and Neo Spectra ST HV after immersion in chlorhexidine mouthwash. Materials and Methods: Thirty disc specimens (10 for each group) made of three different restorative materials, Group 1 - Filtek (3M ESPE), Group 2 - Beautifil II (Shofu), and Group 3 - Neo Spectra ST HV (Dentsply). To simulate 1 year of daily mouthwash use, 10 specimens from each group were immersed in chlorhexidine, kept in an incubator at 37°C for 12 h, and later subjected to microhardness measurement using Vicker's hardness test. Finally, analysis of variance and post hoc tests were used to analyze the results statistically. Results: A significant reduction in microhardness was observed after immersion in chlorhexidine in Groups 1 and 3 compared to Group 2. Conclusions: Filtek Z250XT exhibits the highest microhardness compared to the other two materials. However, Beautifil II is more resistant to chlorhexidine mouthwash and does not show a significant reduction compared to the other two restorative materials.
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.