ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2025
Comparative evaluation of interfacial adaptation of the fiber posts using different adhesive systems: An scanning electron microscope study.
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 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.
- Comparative analysis of stress distribution in teeth restored with glass fiber post, short fiber-reinforced composite post, and ribbond fiber post: A three-dimensional finite element study.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Accuracy of digitally designed endodontic posts: a micro-computed tomography analysis of intraoral scanner and extraoral scanning techniques.BMC oral health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In endodontically treated teeth with significant coronal tissue loss, a post and core are often required to retain restorations. Poorly adapted posts can create marginal gaps, leading to debonding and restoration failure. Aim: The study aimed to evaluate the interfacial adaptation of fiber posts with two different adhesive systems. Materials and Methods: "Access cavities were prepared in sixty mandibular premolars using a No. 2 round bur, followed by deroofing with Endo Z bur. Working length was determined and apical enlargement done with 15 and 20K files. ProTaper Gold NiTi preparation was done up to F2 with irrigation between instrumentation using sodium hypochlorite, followed by final rinse with 5 ml of saline. Canals were obturated with gutta-percha and Ah Plus sealer. Postspace was prepared using Peeso Reamer 3, leaving 5 mm of gutta-percha. Specimens were divided into two groups, ParaCore system and RelyX U200, and then sectioned for scanning electron microscope." Statistical Analysis: Intergroup comparisons used independent t-tests; intragroup comparisons used one-way analysis of variance with Bonferroni post hoc test. Results: Interfacial gaps with ParaCore were largest at the coronal level, 15.4 μm, followed by middle, 5.37 μm, and apical, 2.36 μm. RelyX U200 gaps measured 22.8 μm, 7.55 μm and 3.28 μm, respectively. Conclusion: ParaCore group had lesser gap values at coronal, middle, and apical levels than RelyX U200 group.
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.