ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2025
Comparison of Water Sorption and Water Solubility Properties of Current Restorative Materials with Different Contents.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- From polyetheretherketone to 3D‑printed composites: hydrothermal stability and cement‑dependent resin bonding of high‑performance polymers to pediatric restorations.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Mechanical Properties of Composite Core Build-Up Materials: A Comparative Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Performance of an alkasite restorative material under acidic conditions: surface roughness, gloss and hardness.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Hydrolytic stability and surface roughness of additively and subtractively manufactured CAD/CAM and indirect restorative resin materials.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Characterization of Newly Synthesized Nanobiomaterials for the Treatment of White Spot Lesions.Biomolecules · 2026Article
- Evaluation of physicomechanical and optical properties of bioactive glass (BAG)-filled resin composites: anBiomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2026Article
- A Narrative Review of the Material Properties, Clinical Efficacy, and Developmental Prospects of Bulk-Fill Resin-Based Composites.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2026Review
- Evaluating the physicomechanical characteristics of cetylpyridinium chloride-modified resin-based dental composites following short-and medium-term storage regimes: an in-vitro study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Solubility and Sorption of Equia Forte, GC Gold, and Traditional GIC Restorative Materials.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025Article
- Assessment of Color Stability of Various Flowable Composite Resins with Different Viscosities.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- The Evaluation of Water Sorption Effects on Surface Characteristics and Color Changes in Direct and CAD/CAM Subtractively Processed Resin Composites.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to investigate and compare water sorption and solubility properties of current restorative materials with different contents. MATERIALS AND
methodsAlkasite, self-adhesive restorative material (Cention N, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein), bulk-fill glass hybrid restorative material (EQUIA Forte HT, GC Corp., Tokyo, Japan), nanohybrid universal composite material (OptiShade, Kerr Dental, United States), and bulk-fill composite material (Filtek One Bulk Fill Restorative, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, Minnesota, United States) were used. Samples ( STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: One-way ANOVA, Tukey's post-hoc, Tamhane's T2 post-hoc, Pearson's correlation, and independent samples
resultsGroup EQUIA Forte HT significantly showed the highest water sorption values (57.278 ± 3.174), while Group Filtek One Bulk Fill Restorative exhibited the lowest (4.429 ± 0.174;
conclusionThe bulk-fill nano-filled composite resin material was successful in terms of water sorption while the bulk-fill glass hybrid restorative system in terms of water solubility. Alkasite can be recommended to be used as a base material due to its high solubility feature. Monomer, filler type, and amount had an impact on the water sorption and solubility properties of the tested materials.
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.