ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2026
Evaluation of Microleakage Beneath Orthodontic Molar Bands Cemented With Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Using Two Enamel Deproteinization Agents.
Article in International journal of dentistry, 2026. 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.
- Evaluation of Microleakage Beneath Orthodontic Molar Bands Cemented With Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Using Two Enamel Deproteinization Agents.International journal of dentistry · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the microleakage beneath orthodontic bands cemented with resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), following enamel treatment with two different deproteinizing agents in comparison to a control group. Materials and Methods: Thirty-six human third molars were used for this cross-sectional study. The samples were randomly divided into three equal groups of 12. The method of band cementation in each group was as follows: Group I (6% bromelain enzyme as deproteinizer + GC Fuji plus Conditioner + GC Fuji Plus Glass ionomer), Group II (chlorhexidine [CHX] as deproteinizer + GC Fuji Plus Conditioner + Glass ionomer), and Group III (GC Fuji Plus conditioner + GC fuji plus Glass ionomer) as the control group. All samples were sealed and dyed with methylene blue and then exposed to thermocycling. The samples were sectioned and prepared for microleakage evaluation at both occlusal and gingival sides for the enamel-cement interface margins. A stereomicroscope was used to evaluate the amount of dye penetration as the microleakage. Comparison of the microleakage values among the groups was done using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney Results: The 6% bromelain enzyme deproteinization showed the least amount of microleakage at both occlusal and CEJ sides of the bands ( Conclusion: This study revealed that the pretreatment of enamel with 6% bromelain enzyme significantly reduced the microleakage beneath orthodontic bands cemented with RMGI cement (RMGIC). Improved marginal sealing by 6% bromelain enzyme was significant compared with that of the CHX pretreatment and untreated enamel surfaces.
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.