Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40375839›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2025

Impact of Different Bleaching Methods on Surface Roughness, Microhardness, and Tooth-Restoration Interface of Ormocer- and Methacrylate-based Restorative Systems.

Ali Ihsan Alkhuzaie, Mohamed Elshirbeny Elawsya, Naglaa Rizk Elkholany

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07493941 (Effect of Bleaching Regimen With Different Activation Modes on Color Stability, Surface Roughness, Tooth Sensitivity and Patient Satisfaction), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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.

NCT07493941 naenrolling by invitationnot on this mapstarted 2026, after this paper: background citation

Effect of Bleaching Regimen With Different Activation Modes on Color Stability, Surface Roughness, Tooth Sensitivity and Patient Satisfaction

TypeinterventionalSponsorTanta UniversityRan2026 to 2026Enrolled45ConditionsBleaching, Satisfactory, Bleaching Sensitivity, Bleaching EfficacyArms35% Hydrogen Peroxide Bleaching Gel (Bleach 'n Smile®, Schutz Dental, Germany) with Laser Activation, 35% Hydrogen Peroxide Bleaching Gel (Bleach 'n Smile®, Schutz Dental, Germany) with LED/Light Activation, 35% Hydrogen Peroxide Bleaching Gel (Bleach 'n Smile®, Schutz Dental, Germany) - Chemical Activation Only
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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.

Ali Ihsan AlkhuzaiePostgraduate MSc student, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
Mohamed Elshirbeny ElawsyaLecturer, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.
Naglaa Rizk ElkholanyAssistant Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Mansoura, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The current study assessed the impacts of various in-office bleaching materials (light-activated and chemically-activated) on surface roughness, microhardness, and tooth-restoration interface of two composites restorative systems (ormocer-based and methacrylate-based). Material and Methods: Sixty specimens were prepared for surface roughness and microhardness (2-mm-thickness, 10-mm-diameter) and classified according to restorative materials (n=30 for each group): group A (ormocer-based group) (Admira fusion, Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany) and group B (methacrylate-based group) (Tetric-N-Ceram, Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein). Each group were subdivided into three subgroups (n=10) according to bleaching agent: subgroup 1 (control group, no bleaching), subgroup 2 (bleached with chemically-activated bleaching agent) (Opalescence Boost, Ultradent, USA), and subgroup 3 (bleached with light-activated bleaching agent) (Philips Zoom, Discus, USA). Eighteen maxillary central incisors teeth were subjected to a tooth-restoration interface evaluation (n=9 for each group) and (n=3 for each subgroup). All specimens were finished, polished, and bleached according to manufacturer's instruction. A three-dimensional optical profilometer (Wyko, Model NT 1100, Veeco, Tucson, USA) was used to measure surface roughness. The microhardness was assessed using Vickers tester (Model HVS-50, Laizhou Huayin Testing Instrument Co., Ltd. China) and a scanning electron microscope (SEM) (JEOL.JSM.6510LV, Japan) was used to evaluate tooth-restoration interface. The level of statistical significance was determined at Results: For both bleaching agents. There was statistically significant increase of surface roughness for both composite materials after bleaching, and vice versa for microhardness ( Conclusions: Both bleaching techniques have bad effects on surface roughness, microhardness, and tooth-restoration interface for both ormocer-based and methacrylate-based restorative systems.

Identifiers

PMID40375839
PMCPMC12077838

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.