ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2025
Tooth Substrate vs Conventional Materials Used as a Base in Class V Cavities: A Comparative Study.
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of fracture resistance of class V premolar restorations reinforced with Ribbond and InFibra fibers using two placement techniques: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- The Use of Bovine Teeth as an Experimental Substrate in the Evaluation of Shear in Contemporary Adhesive Systems.Polymers · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cavity bases are dentin replacement materials that provide adequate pulp protection through thermal insulation and by resisting occlusal forces. Traditionally, glass ionomers and other cements were used as bases. In this study, the aim was to use tooth substrates (enamel and dentin) as cavity bases to avoid problems of microleakage and poor compressive strength seen with conventional materials. Materials and methods: For this study, class V cavities were prepared in 96 extracted molars and randomly divided into four groups ( Results: The mean microleakage score was lowest for the enamel slab group (0.9) and highest when no base was used (2.9), and the difference was statistically significant ( Conclusion: The enamel slab demonstrated the maximum fracture resistance and least microleakage, suggesting that it can be a novel and effective base under restorations. How to cite this article: Goyal S, Virk R, Bhullar KK,
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.