ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2025
Comparative in Vitro Evaluation of Marginal Sealing in Class I Composite Restorations Using Fifth- and Seventh-Generation Adhesives.
Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 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.
- Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Color Stability and Fracture Resistance of CAD/CAM and Chairside Provisional Restorations: An In Vitro Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
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
Abstract
backgroundA major challenge in adhesive dentistry, often leading to restoration failure, is microleakage. This in vitro comparative study was designed to assess microleakage at the tooth-composite interface. The investigation aimed to compare the sealing efficacy of two commonly used adhesive systems.
methodsStandardized Class I cavities were prepared on 20 extracted human molars and randomly divided into two groups (n = 10 each). Group A was treated with a fifth-generation total-etch adhesive (OptiBond™ Solo Plus, Kerr Corporation, Orange, CA, USA), and Group B received a seventh-generation self-etch adhesive (Adhese® Universal VivaPen®, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein). All restorations were completed using Herculite XRV composite resin. Microleakage was evaluated using dye penetration analysis after immersion in 2% methylene blue for 10 days, followed by longitudinal sectioning and microscopic measurement at 500× magnification.
resultsThe fifth-generation adhesive group showed a mean microleakage of 0.2503 ± 0.1921 mm, while the seventh-generation group recorded 0.2484 ± 0.1764 mm. Statistical analysis using an independent t-test revealed no significant difference between the groups (
conclusionsBoth adhesive systems demonstrated comparable performance in minimizing microleakage under standardized conditions. Although the total-etch group exhibited slightly lower numerical values, the difference was not statistically significant. These findings suggest that both adhesive approaches can be clinically effective when applied appropriately.
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.