ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2025
Influence of different size of prophylaxis brush on marginal microleakage and hybrid layer morphology of composite restorations.
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. 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Tooth cavity cleaning is a fundamental step to achieve greater adhesion in composite resins restorations. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of different sizes of prophylaxis brush on marginal microleakage and hybrid layer morphology in composite restorations. Material and Methods: Thirty Class V tooth preparations were distributed into 3 groups according to the type of cavity cleaning (n=10): G1: no prophylaxis; G2: Prophylaxis brush with regular size (Robson Brush Prophylaxis/DHPro); G3: Prophylaxis brush with reduced size (Robson Microtuft®/DHPro brush). After the respective cleaning protocol, third human molars were restored using a universal adhesive system (Single Bond Universal - 3M ESPE) and composite resin (FiltekTM Z350 XT 3M ESPE). To characterize the dentin substrate, the samples were prepared until the selective conditioning step and evaluated by scanning electron microscope (SEM) and hybrid layer's morphology was also evaluated after the restorative procedure (n=2). To assess the marginal microleakage, the sample were submitted to the thermocycling process, finished, and polished. After this step, the images were obtained by Micro-CT, and two calibrated evaluators scored the depth of dye penetration as 0 to 3. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare groups regarding marginal microleakage ( Results: G1 and G2 showed the presence of a gap between restoration and dentin, however, G3 showed greater regularity compared to the other groups. In microleakage scores, G1 showed more frequency for score 3 followed by G3 e G2 ( Conclusions: Therefore, the Robson Microtuft® brush did not influence the marginal infiltration of the adhesive restorations, but the absence of prior prophylaxis increased the levels of infiltration and obtained a more irregular adhesive interface.
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.