ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025
An
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 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
Aim: The study focused to determine the microleakage of various materials using the dye penetration method. Materials and Methods: The study samples consisted of 45 healthy human mandibular premolar teeth removed for orthodontic therapy without caries. The samples were categorized into three groups of 15 each. All the samples were etched for 20 seconds with 37% phosphoric acid gel before being sealed with a glass ionomer cement (GIC) sealant (Fuji-VII GIC), light-cure glass ionomer composite cement (Prevest Fusion I), or flowable nanocomposite sealants (Prevest Fusion Flo), respectively. Every sample were thermocycled and immersed for one day in methylene blue (5%) solution to dye diffusion between the gaps present among the tooth and restoration. The teeth were sectioned and analyzed using image analysis software beneath a stereomicroscope at 10x magnification. Results: The marginal microleakage was found lowest in flowable nanocomposites (1.06 ± 0.98), then light-cure glass ionomer composite cement (2.44 ± 1.42), and GIC (4.07 ± 1.54). A statistically significant variance was noted. Conclusion: Current investigation evaluated that reduced marginal leakage was seen in flowable nanocomposites when compared to other two groups.
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.