ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2026
Comparative
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Profilometric analysis of OptraPolJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Effect of antacid syrup on the surface roughness and microhardness of composite materials: AnJournal 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Composite resins offer superior esthetic and functional benefits; however, their surface roughness can lead to plaque accumulation, microleakage, discoloration, and secondary caries. Polishing systems are essential for achieving smooth surfaces and ensuring long-term clinical success. Objective: To evaluate the postpolishing surface finish of microhybrid, nanofilled, and nano-hybrid composites using different polishing systems. Materials and Methods: One hundred fifty mandibular molars with standardized box-shaped occlusal cavities (5 mm × 3 mm × 2 mm) were restored with nanofilled (Group I), nanohybrid (Group II), and microhybrid (Group III) composites. After curing, all specimens were evaluated for surface roughness under a stylus contact profilometer. Groups were subdivided by polishing system: Shofu, Optragloss, Diacomp-Plus Twist, Kenda, and Sof-Lex spiral. Postpolishing roughness was measured to evaluate the efficacy of different polishing systems on each composite. Statistical Analysis: Paired t-tests evaluated pre- and postpolishing differences, and two-way ANOVA with Tukey's test compared composite smoothness. Results: Nanofilled composites showed the greatest improvement in smoothness (1.63 ± 0.67), followed by nanohybrid (1.56 ± 0.81) and micro-hybrid (1.3 ± 0.58) composites. Conclusion: Nanofilled composites provide superior polishability, though the effectiveness of polishing depends on the system used. Selecting an appropriate polishing system ensures optimal surface quality and enhances the longevity of composite restorations.
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.