ArticleContemporary clinical dentistry
Comparative Assessment of Testing Systems for Evaluation of Properties of Different Newer Restorative Resins - An
Article in Contemporary clinical dentistry. 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Restorative composite resin material compositions are frequently improvised to clinically achieve success. Dental composite material to be the choice of restorative material should be compatible with different oral conditions, providing good marginal seal and mechanical integrity. Innovations and modifications done in compositions of these materials for long-lasting restorations in the oral environment require constant testing to evaluate their clinical performance. Different testing systems help researchers to evaluate the properties of materials. This research objective is to compare new modified materials and the effectiveness of the testing method technologies. Aim: The aim of this study was to compare and evaluate different testing methods used to evaluate surface topography and hardness of newer restorative composites. Materials and Methods: Five single shade composites, Bulk fill and nano hybrid (BK and NH), nano fill (NF), nanohybrid (NH), and Glass fiber reinforced (BF) composites resin materials were selected for this study. The composites selected were bulk-fill (BF) and packable composites. The specimens prepared were subjected to surface characteristics analysis with stylus profilometer and atomic force microscopy (AFM), and hardness was evaluated with the Vickers hardness test and nanohardness test. Results: Results obtained were subjected to statistical analysis using two-way analysis of variance and Tukey's Conclusion: Significant difference in test methods and the materials tested were due to different resin matrix, filler sizes, and percentage of volume of fillers, 3-dimensional surface evaluation techniques, and type, size, and forces of indenter needles.
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.