ArticleCureus2025
Effectiveness of Various Light-Cure Biomaterials as an Intraorifice Barrier: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 2025. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective Proper seal achieved via placement of an effective intraorifice barrier curtails the occurrence of post-bleaching consequences and reinforces the cervical tooth structure. Hence, our present study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of three different light-cure biomaterials as an intraorifice barrier. Methodology Forty-eight sound human premolars were obtained, and root canal treatment procedures were accomplished according to the standard protocol. Gutta-percha was removed from the cementoenamel junction to a uniform depth of 3 mm, and the barrier materials were placed according to the respective groups (n=16 each): Group I: resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) (Ionoseal, VOCO, Innovative Biotherapies, Inc., Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States), Group II: TheraCal LC (Bisco, Inc., Schaumburg, Illinois, United States), and Group III: bulk-fill composite (BFC) (Tetric N-Ceram, Ivoclar Vivadent, Inc., Schaan, Liechtenstein). Eight samples from each group were coated with nail varnish, submerged in 2% methylene blue for 24 hours, and evaluated for sealing ability using ultraviolet-visible (UV-Vis) spectrophotometry. The remaining eight samples from each group were subjected to push-out bond strength evaluation using the universal testing machine. Values were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Scheffe's t-test. Result TheraCal LC showed the highest mean value of sealing ability to other groups; however, there is an insignificant difference compared with BFC. Push-out bond strength values are increasing, with Group II being the lowest, followed by Group I and the BFC group demonstrating superior performance. Conclusion TheraCal LC exhibited the least microleakage among the experimental groups. Yet BFC stands out to be a reliable material of choice owing to its superior strength and fairly acceptable sealing ability.
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.