ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2025
Surface Micromorphology of Experimental Composites Doped with Bioactive Glass After Different Storage Times.
Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the surface micromorphology of bioactive glass-modified resin composite materials after storage in simulated body fluid for different periods of time and ultrasonic cleaning. MATERIALS AND
methodsA resin composite material (Heliomolar Flow, Ivoclar Vivadent) was modified by incorporating 10 or 20 wt% of bioactive glass 45S5. The unmodified conventional composite (0 wt% bioactive glass) served as the control. Surface morphology of light-cured composite specimens was examined by profilometry both before and after storage in simulated body fluid (SBF; pH = 7.4, t = 37 °C) for 0, 3, 7, or 30 days, and surface roughness (Ra) was recorded. After storage, ultrasonic cleaning (UC) of the specimens was performed for 10 min in an ultrasonic bath filled with deionized water, and the profilometric measurements were subsequently repeated. In addition, the surfaces of specimens were examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
resultsDirectly after specimen preparation, the Ra values of the composites modified with bioactive glass were similar to those of the conventional composite (0 wt% bioactive glass). A longer immersion in SBF and higher added concentrations of bioactive glass led to an increase in surface roughness. SEM examination revealed that precipitates were formed on the surfaces of specimens containing bioactive glass after exposure to SBF for at least 7 days. The density of these precipitates increased with exposure time and added bioactive glass content. After subsequent ultrasonic cleaning, a significant Ra reduction was observed for specimens containing 10 and 20 wt% bioactive glass and stored for 30 days (
conclusionThe increase in the surface roughness of bioactive glass-modified composites after storage in SBF might be partly attributed to precipitate formation on their surfaces. After ultrasonic cleaning, surface roughness was still increased, indicating poorer surface quality compared to conventional composite.
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.