ArticleEuropean oral research2026
Marginal microleakage at the adhesive bonding interface submitted to storage in water, chemical aging or thermocycling.
Article in European oral research, 2026. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the marginal microleakage of the dentin/resin interface when subjected to water storage, chemical aging, or thermocycling in different adhesive luting treatments. Materials and methods: Bovine teeth were used to prepare dentin blocks (5 × 4 × 1 mm) with one fully exposed dentin surface (n = 45). The blocks were randomly assigned to three luting protocols: 2BSE+DRC (two-bottle self-etch adhesive + dual-curing resin cement); SAP+PRC (self-adhesive primer + photo-activated dual resin cement); and SAP+SRC+O (self-adhesive primer + self-cured dual resin cement + Oxyguard II). Composite resin blocks of the same dimensions were luted onto the dentin blocks according to each protocol. Each treatment group (n = 15) was subdivided into three subgroups (n = 5) based on the aging challenge: storage in water for 7 days (control), aging in 10% sodium hypochlorite solution for 1 hour, or thermocycling for 5,000 cycles. Specimens were then individually immersed in a neutral methylene blue solution for 1 hour, rinsed with water, air-dried, and analyzed for marginal microleakage. Results: Data analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey's test (α = 0.05) showed that 2BSE+DRC exhibited the lowest microleakage after water storage for 7 days (100µm) and the highest after thermocycling (220µm), while sodium hypochlorite aging resulted in an intermediate value (190µm). SAP+PRC and SAP+SRC+O showed no statistically significant differences in microleakage when stored in water (170µm and 620µm, respectively) or after sodium hypochlorite aging (180µm and 610µm, respectively). SAP+SRC+O resulted in significantly greater microleakage in water storage (620µm) and sodium hypochlorite aging (610µm) compared to 2BSE+DRC (100µm and 190µm, respectively) and SAP+PRC (170µm and 180µm, respectively). Thermocycling produced significant differences among the three treatments (p less than 0.05), with SAP+SRC+O showing the highest microleakage (1,370µm), 2BSE+DRC the lowest (220µm), and SAP+PRC an intermediate value (810µm). Conclusion: Adhesive luting treatments exhibited different levels of marginal microleakage when subjected to water storage, chemical aging, or thermocycling. Thermocycling resulted in the highest marginal microleakage at the dentin/resin interface for all adhesive protocols tested.
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.