Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40063191›Full record

ArticleIrish journal of medical science2025

Comparative evaluation of microleakage of four restorative materials using confocal laser scanning microscopy: an in vitro study.

Annapoorna Kini, Kavana M G, Shubhashini N, Nithin Shetty, Venkata Suresh Venkataiah, Mohammad Fareed, Mohmed Isaqali Karobari

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Irish journal of medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Annapoorna KiniRajarajeswari Dental College & Hospital, No.14, Ramohalli Cross, Kumbalgodu, Bengaluru, 560 074, India.
Kavana M GRajarajeswari Dental College & Hospital, No.14, Ramohalli Cross, Kumbalgodu, Bengaluru, 560 074, India.
Shubhashini NRajarajeswari Dental College & Hospital, No.14, Ramohalli Cross, Kumbalgodu, Bengaluru, 560 074, India.
Nithin ShettyRamaiah University of Applied Sciences, Bengaluru, 5600054, India.
Venkata Suresh VenkataiahDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai, 600077, Tamil Nadu, India. vvenkatasuresh84@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5613-2924
Mohammad FareedDepartment of Basic Medical Sciences, College of Medicine, Almaarefa University, Diriyah, Riyadh, P.O. Box: 71666, Riyadh, 11597, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Mohmed Isaqali KarobariDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences, Saveetha University, Chennai, 600077, Tamil Nadu, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveUnderstanding the sealing ability of restorative materials to prevent microleakage and its consequent complications-such as secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity, and restoration failure-is imperative in clinical dentistry. This study aims to compare the microleakage performance of four restorative materials-bioactive composite resin (Activa Pronto), alkasite restorative (Cention N), compomer (Dyract Flow), and glass ionomer cement (Type 2 GIC)-in Class V cavities of extracted premolar teeth. MATERIALS AND

methodsForty non-carious, intact premolar teeth were selected and prepared with standardized Class V cavities. The teeth were randomly assigned to one of four groups (n = 10) and restored with the respective materials. The restorations underwent thermocycling, followed by microleakage testing using rhodamine dye. Confocal laser scanning microscopy (CLSM), a technique that provides superior depth resolution and three-dimensional visualization of microleakage, was used to assess dye penetration at the tooth-restoration interface. Microleakage was then scored using a standardized grading system.

resultsSignificant differences in microleakage were observed among the groups (χ

conclusionsBioactive composite resin (Activa Pronto) provided the most effective seal against microleakage, followed by alkasite and compomer, with glass ionomer cement showing the least effective sealing properties.

Indexed as

Composite ResinsDental LeakageDental Restoration, PermanentCompomersGlass Ionomer CementsHumansIn Vitro TechniquesMicroscopy, ConfocalCompomersComposite ResinsDyractGlass Ionomer CementsAlkasiteBioactive composite resinCompomerConfocal laser scanning microscopyDye penetrationGlass ionomer cementMicroleakageRestorative materials

Identifiers

PMID40063191

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.