ArticleCureus2025
The Role of Lead Shielding in Preventing Gamma Radiation-Induced Microleakage in Nanohybrid Composite Restorations: 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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMarginal microleakage is a significant factor that contributes to the failure of cavity restorations, ultimately leading to recurrent caries. These failures are primarily attributed to the properties of the restorative materials, which are often influenced by various environmental factors. Gamma radiation has been shown to have deleterious effects not only on dental hard tissues but also on composite restorative materials, potentially increasing microleakage. A viable approach to mitigate these effects is the implementation of protective shielding for vulnerable structures during radiotherapy. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of gamma radiation on the marginal microleakage of nanohybrid composite restorations, specifically comparing the extent of microleakage in restorations subjected to radiation with and without lead shielding. MATERIALS AND
methodsAn in vitro study was conducted using 45 freshly extracted premolars divided into three groups: group 1 (control), group 2 (radiated without lead shielding), and group 3 (radiated with lead shielding). Class V cavities were prepared and restored using nanohybrid composite resin. Gamma radiation was administered using a cobalt-60 machine at a total dose of 70 Gy for seven weeks. A lead shielding of 11-mm was placed in the collimator for group 3. Microleakage was evaluated using a dye penetration technique, and data were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis test followed by post-hoc Dunn's test for pairwise comparisons.
resultsSignificant differences were observed in microleakage between the groups using the Kruskal-Wallis test (p = 0.001); however, post-hoc analysis revealed no statistically significant difference between groups 2 and 3 (p > 0.05). This showed that lead shielding did not significantly reduce microleakage compared with no shielding. Group 1 exhibited the least microleakage, with a mean dye score of 0.87 ± 0.83. Group 3 showed moderate microleakage (mean score = 2.06 ± 0.50), while group 2 exhibited the most severe microleakage (mean score = 2.47 ± 0.51).
conclusionGamma radiation adversely affected the marginal integrity of nanohybrid composite restorations, with the control group showing the best performance in terms of minimal microleakage. While lead shielding showed some reduction in microleakage, it was not statistically significant compared with the group without shielding. This highlights the need to optimize radiation shielding strategies to protect dental tissues in patients undergoing head and neck cancer treatment. Further in vivo studies are recommended to evaluate the long-term effects and refine clinical practices for radiation protection.
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.