ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2025
Comparative evaluation of cervical microleakage in class II composite restorations using different liner and placement techniques: An
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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cariogenic Risk Modifies the Effect of Marginal Adaptation on Caries Adjacent to Posterior Composite Restorations: A Stratified Multivariate Analysis.Clinics and practice · 2026Article
- Bioactive Fillers in Bulk-Fill Composite Resins: A Comprehensive Review of the Effects on Polymerization Shrinkage Behavior and Mechanical Performance.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Decoding marginal adaptation and microleakage: A field emission scanning electron microscopy and stereomicroscopic evaluation of cavity liners under class II composite restorations.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Performance of composite-reinforced glass ionomer liners in class V restorations.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Marginal integrity at sub-cementoenamel junction (CEJ) margins remains a clinical challenge in posterior composite restorations. Polymerization shrinkage and interfacial stress contribute to microleakage and restoration failure. The present Materials and Methods: Forty extracted human maxillary first premolars were prepared with standardized Class II box-only cavities (gingival margin 2 mm below CEJ) on both sides, thereby yielding a total of Results: All groups showed some degree of leakage. Mean dye penetration scores were: Group 1 = 3.75 ± 0.55, Group 2 = 3.65 ± 0.67, Group 3 = 1.90 ± 1.77, and Group 4 = 2.00 ± 1.72 ( Conclusion: Incremental and bulk-fill placement techniques achieved superior marginal sealing compared with restorations using RMGIC or flowable liners. Liners did not improve sub-CEJ sealing and may increase interfacial stress. Simplified adhesive strategies using low-shrinkage composites can enhance long-term marginal integrity.
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.