ArticleCureus2026
Mechanical Performance and Marginal Integrity Evaluation of Contemporary Universal Resin Composites for Dental Restorations: An In-Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUniversal resin composites are widely used for dental restorations, but differences in resin chemistry, filler composition, and polymerization can affect performance and marginal integrity.
objectiveTo evaluate four modern universal resin composites in terms of their mechanical characteristics and marginal integrity. MATERIALS AND
methodsNinety-six specimens were prepared into four groups (UC-A, UC-B, UC-C, UC-D; n = 24 each). Bar and disc shaped specimens were tested for flexural strength, Vickers' Microhardness, and two-body wear, respectively. Extracted human molars (n = 48) with Class II cavities were restored with composites, marginal integrity using dye penetration (0-3 scoring), and gap width measurement after thermocycling (5,000 cycles). Data were analyzed with one-way ANOVA/Tukey or Kruskal-Wallis/Dunn tests (α = 0.05).
resultsUC-A exhibited the highest flexural strength (125.4 ± 7.8 MPa) and modulus (6.2 ± 0.4 GPa), significantly greater than UC-C (112.7 ± 5.9 MPa; 5.5 ± 0.4 GPa, p < 0.05). Microhardness ranged from 75.4 ± 2.2 VHN (UC-C) to 81.5 ± 2.6 VHN (UC-A, p < 0.01). Wear volume loss was lowest for UC-A (0.087 ± 0.012 mm³) and highest for UC-C (0.108 ± 0.013 mm³, p = 0.04). Marginal integrity was highest for UC-A, with 50% leakage-free restorations and gap width (45.3 ± 6.2 µm), while UC-C had more leakage (Score 3 in 8.3% of cases) and wider gaps (56.9 ± 7.1 µm, p = 0.01). UC-B and UC-D showed intermediate results.
conclusionUC-A demonstrated superior mechanical performance and marginal sealing, whereas UC-C performed least favorably, highlighting the influence of resin formulation.
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.