ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2024
Effect of Photoaging on the Structure, Optical Properties and Roughness of One-Shade Composite Restoratives.
Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
The aim of the study was to evaluate changes in the degree of C=C conversion (DC%), chemical structure, optical properties and roughness of one-shade composites before/after photoaging. Τhe one-shade materials tested were Charisma Topaz One (CHT), Clearfil Majesty ES-2 Universal (MES), Essentia Universal (ESU) and Omnichroma (OMN), with G-aenial Anterior (CNA) serving as control. Specimens (2 mm thickness) were prepared and tested for DC% and chemical structure (ATR-FTIR spectroscopy), optical properties (L*a*b*-ΔΕ, translucency parameter-TP, opalescence parameter-OP, contrast ratio-CR and total transmittance-TT by UV-Vis spectroscopy) and roughness (Sa, Sz, Sdr, Sds and Sc by optical profilometry) before and after photoaging (Xe-arc weatherometer). Significant differences were found in DC% between top-bottom surfaces (ESU, OMN before; ESU, CNA after). Photoaging improved DC%, reduced ester peaks implying photodegradation, reduced L* (CHT, OMN, CNA), a* (CHT, CNA), b* (OMN, CNA), TP (all, except for MES), OP (only MES), CR (only MES, but an increase in CNA) and TT (CHT, OMN). OMN, CNA and MES demonstrated ΔΕ > 3.3. Photoaging significantly increased all roughness parameters in all materials, except for MES (Sz, Sdr, Sc) and OMN (Sdr). Although listed in the same group, significant differences were found in one-shade composites before and after photoaging. Several products were strongly affected by photoaging, demonstrating evidence of photodegradation, an increased roughness and color changes exceeding the clinically acceptable levels.
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.