ArticleLasers in medical science2024
Impact of acid and laser etching of enamel on microleakage in different adhesive systems.
Article in Lasers in medical science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- How laser etching affects the clinical performance of a "no-wait" universal adhesive: 36-month results.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the microleakage of light-cured and self-cured adhesives on enamel surfaces selectively etched with Er, Cr: YSGG laser or 35% phosphoric acid. A total of 60 class V cavities were prepared 1 mm above the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ). The specimens were randomly divided into six groups. Group 1: Clearfil SE Bond with no conditioning, Group 2: Tokuyama Universal Bond with no conditioning, Group 3: Clearfil SE Bond conditioned with 35% phosphoric acid, Group 4: Tokuyama Universal Bond conditioned with 35% phosphoric acid, Group 5: Clearfil SE Bond conditioned with Er, Cr: YSGG laser and Group 6: Tokuyama Universal Bond conditioned with Er, Cr: YSGG laser. Microleakage was evaluated qualitatively (visually) and quantitatively (ImageJ). The data were analyzed using IBM SPSS V23 and submitted to Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests. The significance level was set at p < 0.05. In all evaluation methods, the microleakage scores exhibit significant differences (p*<0.001). Group 1 and Group 3 exhibited similar and lower microleakage values than the Group 5. In the occlusal margin, the microleakage values were similar in Group 2, Group 4, and Group 6, whereas in the gingival margin Group 4 showed significantly lower leakage compared to Group 2. Regardless of the etching protocols and adhesive systems used, less microleakage was observed on the occlusal surface than on the gingival surface. Phosphoric acid etching provides better results than laser etching for enamel surface treatment on both occlusal and gingival surfaces.
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.