ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2024
Comparison of the Effect of Different Bonding Agents on the Microleakage of Two Hydrophilic Pit and Fissure Sealants: An
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Microleakage, penetration depth, and fluoride release of Embrace Wetbond, Denuseal, and Helioseal F Plus pit and fissure sealants: a comparative in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- In Vitro Microleakage Comparison of Three Pit-and-Fissure Sealant Protocols: Self-Etch Sealant with and Without Separate Adhesive Versus Conventional Resin-Based Sealants.Biomedicines · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To compare the impact of fifth- and seventh-generation bonding agents on the microleakage between Embrace WetBond sealants and Ionoseal. Materials and methods: Forty extracted human premolar teeth were used for the study and grouped according to different sealants and bonding agents-group I: Embrace WetBond sealant with fifth-generation bonding agent; group II: Embrace WetBond sealant with seventh-generation bonding agent; group III: Ionoseal with fifth-generation bonding agent; group IV: Ionoseal with seventh-generation bonding agent. For microleakage evaluation, all the teeth were subjected to invasive sealant placement using the respective sealant materials in combination with bonding agents as specified. The treated teeth were stored at 37°C for 24 hours and then thermocycled for 100 cycles at temperatures of 5°C and 55°C with a dwell time of 30 seconds. In order to assess microleakage, the samples were immersed in 0.2% methylene blue dye for 24 hours, then sectioned in buccolingual direction, and evaluated under stereomicroscope. Results: The mean microleakage scores in group III were highest at 0.90 ± 0.57, while the least was in group IV at 0.30 ± 0.68, indicating that Ionoseal with seventh-generation bonding agent was the most effective. However, when the mean microleakage scores of the four groups were compared using Kruskal-Wallis test, it indicated that the differences were not statistically significant. How to cite this article: V R, P P, A A,
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.