ArticleScientific reports2026
Performance of an alkasite restorative material under acidic conditions: surface roughness, gloss and hardness.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Effect of surface treatment protocols and thermocycling on the optical, surface, and mechanical properties of additively manufactured resin materials.Clinical oral investigations · 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
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
In this study, the effects of acidic environments on the surface integrity of an alkasite-based resin composite (Cention Forte, CF) were compared with those of a nanohybrid composite (Z250 XT) and a resin-modified glass ionomer (Fuji II LC, FLC). The samples (n = 6) were immersed for 96 h at 37 °C in Coca-Cola (CC, pH 2.6), simulated gastric acid (SGA, pH 1.2) or artificial saliva (pH 6.5). Surface roughness (Ra and Rz), gloss, and microhardness were measured, and morphology was examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Significant effects of material, solution and their interaction were observed (p < 0.001). In artificial saliva, CF exhibited Ra and Rz values (0.34 ± 0.03 and 2.39 ± 0.33 μm, respectively) comparable to those of FLC, intermediate gloss (46.30 ± 1.47 GU), and the lowest microhardness (59.01 ± 2.57 VHN). In CC and SGA, CF had higher roughness (Ra: 0.52 ± 0.10 and 0.71 ± 0.12 μm; Rz: 3.16 ± 0.78 and 4.05 ± 0.74 μm, respectively), lower gloss (32.72 ± 1.13 and 23.47 ± 1.18 GU), and lower microhardness (51.99 ± 3.15 and 42.70 ± 3.59 VHN) than FLC. SEM analysis confirmed these findings, showing matrix erosion and filler loss in CF. Z250 XT consistently maintained superior integrity. Clinically, these findings suggest that alkasite-based restorations may be less durable in patients with frequent dietary acid exposure or gastric reflux.
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.