ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2025
Comparative Evaluation of Microleakage Around Pre-Endodontic Buildup with Composite, Light Cured Glass Ionomer Cement, and Glass Ionomer Cement: 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To compare the microleakage of three different restorative materials used in pre-endodontic buildup: Bulk Filled Composite, Light Cured Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC), and Conventional GIC. Methods: This in-vitro study involved 36 extracted human molars divided into three groups, each restored with one of the aforementioned materials. Standardized class V cavities were prepared and restored according to manufacturer instructions. The teeth underwent thermocycling and were immersed in methylene blue dye to assess microleakage. Results: Bulk Filled Composite exhibited the least microleakage (Mean = 3.9047, SD = 0.79519), followed by Light Cure GIC (Mean = 4.9628, SD = 1.87938) and GIC (Mean = 5.6244, SD = 1.55793). Statistical analysis using ANOVA revealed significant differences in microleakage among the groups (F-statistic = 4.109, Conclusion: Bulk Filled Composite demonstrated superior performance in reducing microleakage compared to both forms of GIC. This suggests that Bulk Filled Composite is more effective for pre-endodontic restorations where minimizing microleakage is critical for successful endodontic therapy.
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.