ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
Marginal integrity of prototype bioactive glass-doped resin composites in class II cavities.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis in vitro study examined the marginal integrity of experimental composite materials doped with bioactive glass (BG). MATERIALS AND
methodsClass-II MOD cavities were prepared and restored with one of the following composite materials: a commercial composite material as a reference (Filtek Supreme XTE), an experimental composite doped with BG 45S5 (C-20), and an experimental composite doped with a fluoride-containing BG (F-20). Six experimental groups (n = 8) were used, as each of the three composites was applied with (+) or without (-) a universal adhesive (Adper Scotchbond Multipurpose). All specimens were subjected to thermocycling (10,000 x, 5-55 °C) and then additionally stored in artificial saliva for eight weeks. Scanning electron micrographs of the mesial and the distal box were taken at three time points (initial, after thermocycling, and after eight weeks of storage in artificial saliva). The margins were classified as "continuous" and "non-continuous" and the percentage of continuous margins (PCM) was statistically analyzed (α = 0.05).
resultsIn most experimental groups, thermocycling led to a significant decrease in PCM, while the additional 8-week aging had no significant effect. F-20 + performed significantly better (p = 0.005) after 8 weeks storage in artificial saliva than the reference material with adhesive, while no statistically significant differences were observed at the other two time points. C-20 + exhibited significantly better PCM than the reference material with adhesive after thermocycling (p = 0.026) and after 8 weeks (p = 0.003).
conclusionsOverall, the experimental composites with BG showed at least as good marginal adaptation as the commercial reference, with an indication of possible re-sealing of marginal gaps. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Maintaining or improving the marginal integrity of composite restorations is important to prevent microleakage and its likely consequences such as pulp irritation and secondary caries.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39012388What 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.