ArticleScientific reports2025
Long-term water immersion of dental composites based on bioactive glass.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Bioactive Fillers in Bulk-Fill Composite Resins: A Comprehensive Review of the Effects on Polymerization Shrinkage Behavior and Mechanical Performance.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Effects of sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine on microhardness and solubility of mineral trioxide aggregate and bioceramic putty.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study investigated the effect of copper-doped mesoporous bioactive glass nanospheres (Cu-MBGN) on water sorption, solubility and porosity of an experimental dental composite over 180 days of water immersion, comparing it to bioactive glass 45S5 (BG) or inert fillers. Composites contained 35wt% Bis-GMA/TEGDMA resin (60/40), 55wt% silanised barium-glass fillers, and 10wt% of either Cu-MBGN (10-CuBG), 45S5 bioactive glass (10-BG), or inert silica nanofillers (10-Si). Both BG composites showed a higher mass increase during water immersion than inert control (10-Si) at all measured time points (p < 0.001), ranked as 10-BG > 10-CuBG > 10-Si. After 30 days, 10-BG had the greatest mass increase (4.02 ± 0.21%), followed by a decline until 180 days, while 10-CuBG (1.67 ± 0.10%) and 10-Si (1.19 ± 0.07%) showed gradual mass increases until the end of the measurement. 10-BG displayed higher water sorption and solubility than other materials, while 10-CuBG had the highest porosity parameters. While 10-BG and 10-Si showed significant increases in both total and open porosity after water immersion, no such changes were observed for 10-CuBG. The pore characteristics of dry specimens did not affect final water sorption and solubility after 180 days of water immersion. The Cu-MBGN composite had a lower mass increase than commercial BG and met ISO 4049 standards for both water sorption and solubility.
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.