ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Characteristics of Interface Zone Between Glass-Based Restorative Materials and Sound and Caries-Affected Primary Dentine.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The aim was to evaluate the interface zone between glass hybrid (GH), high-viscosity (HV), and resin-modified (RM) glass-ionomer cements (GIC) and sound (SD) and artificially created caries-affected (ACAD) primary dentin. Occlusal cavities were prepared in 120 extracted primary molars and randomly assigned to SD or ACAD. Samples were restored with GH (Equia Forte HT-EF), HV-GIC (Equia Fill-E; Ketac Molar-KM), or RM-GIC (Fuji-II LC-FII; Photac Fill-PF) and exposed to thermal aging. Microleakage (methylene-blue) was analyzed using an optical digital microscope. The interface between dental tissues and restorative materials was analyzed using a scanning electron (SE) microscope. SE microphotographs were manually annotated for intimate contact and cracks/gaps at the material-enamel/dentin interface and analyzed using a custom Python-based algorithm to quantify the respective percentages. No microleakage was noted only in the SD group for EF (50%), FII (42%), and E (33%). All materials showed higher microleakage in ACAD than SD (
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.