ArticleBMC oral health2024
Elemental analysis and micromorphological patterns of tooth/restoration interface of three ion-releasing class V restorations.
Article in BMC oral health, 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.
- Bioactive restorative materials in dentistry: a comprehensive review of mechanisms, clinical applications, and future directions.Odontology · 2026Review
- Effect of Ozone on Adhesion of Pediatric Bioactive Restorative MaterialsActa stomatologica Croatica · 2026Article
- Bond strength of different viscosities Giomer-based composites to dentin under erosive conditions.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Elemental and micromorphological analysis of ion releasing restoration/carious dentin interface.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Effect of Mesoporous Zinc Oxide Nanoparticle Incorporation on the Bond Strength of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement to Enamel and Dentin: An In Vitro Study.International journal of dentistry · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate and compare the ion-releasing capability of three different restorative systems at the restoration/tooth interface elemental analysis using energy-dispersive X-ray technique. Additionally, micromorphological patterns of the restoration/tooth interfaces was investigated. MATERIALS AND
methodsEighteen freshly extracted sound human premolars were collected for the study. The premolars were randomly assigned into 3 groups (n = 6) based on the type of restorative materials used: Giomer (Beautifill II), ion-releasing composite (Activa Presto), and RMGI (Riva Light Cure). Half of the specimens in each group were tested after 24 h (the "immediate group"), while the remaining half were tested after 6 months of storage in deionized water (the "delayed group"). Standardized box-shaped cavities along the cervical area of teeth crowns and restored them with the assigned restorative material following manufacturers' instructions. The specimens were sectioned buccolingually into 2 halves. One half of each specimen was subjected to elemental analysis using energy-dispersive X-ray technique (EDX), while the remaining half was sputter coated and underwent micromorphological analysis of the restoration/tooth interface using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The collected data from elemental analysis test were tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis.
resultsThe two-way ANOVA test showed significant differences in both phosphorus and calcium levels among the tested restorative systems (p < 0.05). In the immediate subgroup, RMGI recorded the highest phosphorus level (0.1527), followed by the ion-releasing composite (0.1172), while Giomer exhibited the least levels (0.0326) (p < 0.05). The ion-releasing composite group had the highest calcium level (0.2797), followed by RMGI (0.248), and Giomer (0.2385) respectively (p < 0.05). In the delayed subgroups, Giomer recorded the highest phosphorus level (0.1526), followed by the ion-releasing composite (0.1058), and RMGI group (0.0466) respectively (p < 0.05). RMGI had the highest calcium level (0.2801), followed by the ion-releasing composite (0.2659), and Giomer had the lowest level (0.1792) (p < 0.05). The micromorphological analysis of the restoration/tooth interfaces showed good adaptation between the composite and tooth substrate in different restorative groups.
conclusionsThe ion-releasing capability of the three restorative systems appears to be comparable. The rate of mineral release and diffusion is affected by time and composition.
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.