Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40259372›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2025

Gastric acid challenge: Mechanical proficiency and surface gloss of tooth-colored restorative materials.

Ozge Gizem Yenidunya, Tugba Misilli, Ebru Yilmaz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing 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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. 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

3 authors.

Ozge Gizem YenidunyaDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Pamukkale University, Denizli, 20160, Turkey. gizemyndny@outlook.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7898-9259
Tugba MisilliDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, 17100, Çanakkale, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0019-4872
Ebru YilmazDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Pamukkale University, Denizli, 20160, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8793-3273

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo evaluate surface microhardness, roughness, and gloss changes of tooth-colored restorative materials [a direct composite (G-aenial A'Chord), an indirect composite (Gradia Plus), an ormocer (Admira Fusion), a giomer (Beautifil II), and an alkasite (Cention N)] after exposure to simulated gastric acid.

methodsA total of 110 disc-shaped specimens (22 discs of each material) were prepared using silicone molds (8 mm×2 mm) and exposed to either gastric acid or artificial saliva (control). Surface roughness (Ra), gloss (GU), and microhardness (VHN) were measured at baseline and after 96-hour of immersion in the solutions and the respective changes (∆Ra, ∆GU, ∆VHN) were calculated. Intergroup comparisons were performed using ANOVA (Tukey post hoc) or Kruskal-Wallis tests (Bonferroni correction). Independent samples t-test or Mann-Whitney U test was used for comparisons of each material across immersion media, while paired t-test was applied for time-dependent analyses.

resultsIn the gastric acid medium, changes in all parameters led to significant differences among restorative materials, while in the artificial saliva medium, significant differences were observed in ∆VHN and ∆GU. The statistically significant difference between immersion media was observed in both ∆VHN and ∆Ra values for the giomer group, and in only ∆VHN values for the alkasite and indirect composite groups. In the gastric acid medium, the decrease in VHN and GU values was significant across all subgroups, while the increase in Ra was statistically significant only in the giomer and alkasite groups.

conclusionsWhile the giomer group exhibited the most significant changes in roughness and microhardness following exposure to gastric acid, all tested materials executed clinically admissible results regarding surface gloss. CLINICAL TRIAL NUMBER: Not applicable.

Indexed as

Composite ResinsDental MaterialsDental Restoration, PermanentGastric AcidBisphenol A-Glycidyl MethacrylateHardnessHumansMaterials TestingSaliva, ArtificialSurface PropertiesBeautifil composite resinBisphenol A-Glycidyl MethacrylateComposite ResinsDental MaterialsSaliva, ArtificialGastric acidSurface glossSurface microhardnessSurface roughnessTooth-colored restorative materials

Identifiers

PMID40259372
PMCPMC12012973

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.