ArticlePolymers2024
Assessment of Surface Roughness, Color, and Bonding Efficacy: Self-Adhesive vs. Conventional Flowable Resin.
Article in Polymers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Multimodal Assessment of a New Self-Adhering Flowable Composite: Dental Pulp Stem Cell Viability and Bond Strength.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Analysis of Microhardness and Surface Roughness in Newer Pedo Shade Nanocomposite: AnInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2026Article
- Self-Adhesive Flowable Resin Composites-Are We Going Somewhere?Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Review
- Self-adhesive flowable resin composite for occluso-proximal restorations in primary teeth: restorative time and fracture resistance analysis.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2026Article
- Technological dental sealants: in vitro evaluation of material properties and antibiofilm potential.BMC oral health · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This in vitro study aimed to analyze the surface roughness (Ra) and color stability (ΔEab, ΔE00) following simulated mechanical brushing and to evaluate the microtensile (μTBS) of self-adhering resin flowable (SARF) to dentin. The selected materials were Constic, Yflow AS, and Tetric N flow (TNF/control). Thirty composite resin cylinders were fabricated for surface property evaluation. Ra and color were assessed both before and after simulated brushing. The thresholds of 50:50% perceptibility and acceptability of color differences in the evaluated resins were assessed. For μTBS analysis, fifteen molars were selected, sectioned to expose flat dentin surfaces, and restored according to the manufacturers' instructions for microtensile testing. There were statistically significant differences in Ra among the groups, with Constic exhibiting the highest Ra value (0.702 µm;
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.