ArticleBMC oral health2024
Does different application modes of universal adhesives with universal resin composites affect the microleakage in class V cavities? An in vitro study.
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.
- Evaluation of Fiber Contamination from Different Microapplicators in Universal Adhesive Systems: A Pilot In Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- The Shear Bond Strength of Gum-Imitating Composites with Traditional Composites-Preliminary Studies.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparative evaluation of microleakage and internal voids in class II restorations using open sandwich technique: AnBioinformation · 2026Article
- Clinical Performance of Template-assisted Monochromatic Structural Colored Versus Universal Multishade Direct Composite Veneers Over 3 Years: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of clinical and experimental 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimComposite restorations often have gingival margins near the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ), where the microleakage of these margins can significantly contribute to the restoration failure, especially in the cervical lesions. It is important to determine the microleakage is crucial, as it typically occurs through the interfacial gap between the tooth and the restoration. Various resin composites and techniques have been developed to minimize this gap and reduce the risk of microleakage. The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the levels of microleakage of different modes of a universal adhesive and two novel resin composites in restoring class V cavities in the central incisors.
methodsSixty-six freshly extracted sound human central incisors of the similar size were randomly assigned to 2 groups (n = 33 per group) according to the brand of resin composite. Each group was further divided into 3 subgroups based on the Scotch Bond Universal (3 M ESPE, Saint Paul, MN, USA) application protocol used: (a) total etch, (b) self-etch and (c) selective etch. After composite restoration completed with Omnichroma (Tokuyama Dental Corp., Tokyo, Japan) and Filtek Universal Restorative (3 M ESPE, Saint Paul, MN, USA), each tooth was immersed in a 0.5% basic fuchsin dye solution at 37C
resultsThe rates of microleakage of the gingival and incisal margins are statistically similar, regardless of the composite brand and the method of application of the universal adhesive.
conclusionThe microleakage exhibited by current adhesives and resins is independent of the adhesive application mode and measurement method.
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.