ArticleScientific reports2025
Micro-CT evaluation of marginal and internal adaptation of composite resins using different application techniques.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the marginal and internal adaptation of two bulk-fill and one conventional composite resin placed with different techniques using micro-CT. Twenty-one extracted human third molars with standardized mesio-occlusal cavities (a bucco-lingual width of 3 mm, a mesio-distal width of 5 mm, and a depth of 4 mm) were randomly divided into three groups (n = 7): Group 1 was restored with SonicFill 2 using sonic activation and 4 mm single layer, Group 2 with Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill in a 4 mm single layer and Group 3 with Clearfil Majesty Posterior using a 2 mm incremental technique. All restorations underwent 5,000 thermal cycles before micro-CT scanning. Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests (p < 0.05). The SonicFill 2 group showed a significantly greater marginal gap volume than the Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill group (p = 0.023), while no significant differences were found among the Clearfil Majesty Posterior group and the others (p > 0.05). No significant differences were observed among the groups in terms of internal void volume (p = 0.101). These findings suggest that variations in marginal adaptation among different composite resins may be attributed to differences in their material composition and placement techniques which have a limited effect on internal adaptation.
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.