ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2025
Comparative Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength and Microleakage of Three Different Restorative Materials in Primary Molar Teeth: An
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In minimally invasive dentistry, adhesive restorative materials are widely used both as bulk restoratives and for the repair of occlusal, proximal, cervical, and multisurface cavities. These consist of conventional, modified glass ionomers, compomers, composites, and new alkasite materials. Few investigations have focused on comparing the Aim: To compare and assess the microleakage and shear bond strength (SBS) of 3M ESPE Composite (Filtek Z350 XT), Kids-e-Restore, and Cention N in primary molar teeth. Materials and methods: This experimental investigation was divided into three groups: Cention N was in group I, Kids-e-Restore was in group II, and 3M ESPE composite (Filtek Z350 XT) was in group III. Shear bond strength testing was done by a universal testing machine. The maximum load was recorded during the testing. Samples were analyzed through a stereomicroscope to evaluate bond failure mode. Dye penetration was used to assess microleakage, and a stereomicroscope was used for examination. Results: 3M Filtek Z350XT had the highest SBS, and Cention N had the lowest. Kids-e-Restore showed the least amount of microleakage, then by Cention N and 3M Filtek Z350 XT. Conclusion: Composite resin (3M Filtek Z350 XT) has better SBS than Cention N and flowable GIC (glass ionomer cement) (Kids-e-Restore) in primary molar teeth. Flowable GIC (Kids-e-Restore) showed less microleakage and is a good adjunct for class II restorations. How to cite this article: Dadpe MV, Kendre UR, Kale YJ,
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.