ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2024
Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage in Class V Cavities Restored with Newer Bioactive Restorative Materials: Activa Bioactive Restorative and Activa Pronto.
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of bioactive and conventional liners on marginal sealing and dentin bond strength of Class V resin composite restorations: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Evaluation of bioactive restorative materials on cell viability using direct and extract methods.Brazilian oral research · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the remineralization potential of bioactive materials using different methods.Scientific reports · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: To compare the microleakage in class V cavities restored with Activa Bioactive Restorative, Activa Pronto, and nanohybrid composite. Materials and methods: Standardized class V cavity preparations (mesiodistal: 3 mm; occlusocervical: 2 mm; axial depth: 1 mm) were made on the buccal surface of 60 extracted intact maxillary premolar teeth. The preparations were divided into three experimental groups ( Statistical analysis: One-way ANOVA test followed by Tukey's Results: There was a statistically significant difference ( Conclusion: Activa Pronto and Activa Bioactive Restorative materials may be considered as replacement to the routinely used nanohybrid composites especially in class V cavities due to their bioactive properties and better esthetics. Clinical significance: Based on the results of our study and that found in the literature, it is evident that newer bioactive restorative materials, Activa Pronto and Activa Bioactive Restoratives showed significantly less microleakage in class Vcavities when compared to conventionally used nanohybrid composite resins. How to cite this article: V PT, Pai VS, B V,
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.