ArticleBMC oral health2026
Effect of optical impression, timing of dentin sealing application and cavity design optimization on microleakage of ceramic onlays: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
statement of problemImmediate dentin sealing (IDS) is used to improve bonding of indirect restoration. However, interaction between polyether impressions may affect the future bonding of indirect restoration. So, digital impressions with IDS may have a better impact on microleakage. PURPOSE: The current in vitro study aimed to investigate the effect of using digital impression versus polyether impression and different dentin sealing techniques on the microleakage of lithium disilicate onlays. MATERIAL AND
methodsA total of 60 identically sized human mandibular molars were allocated into two groups (n = 30): group DI, which uses a digital impression, and group CI, which uses a polyether impression. After preparation of all teeth for onlay, based on the dentin sealing technique, these groups were further divided into three subgroups (n = 10): subgroups I, II, and III. Dentin sealing was postponed in subgroup I prior to cementation. Immediate dentin sealing was applied prior to impression processes in subgroups II and III, plus cavity design optimization (CDO) for subgroup III. All teeth received e.max CAD onlay restoration (Ivoclar Vivadent, Schaan, Liechtenstein). The specimens were exposed to thermocycling with bath temperatures of 5 °C and 55 °C for a total of 5000 cycles. The specimens were then submerged in 0.5% aqueous Rhodamine B dye for 48 h. Buccolingual sections were examined under confocal microscopy. Microleakage was scored (0–3). Data were analyzed using the Scheirer–Ray–Hare test (α = 0.05).
resultsMicroleakage was significantly lower in DI than CI (P=.0046). Delayed dentin sealing (subgroup I) showed significantly higher microleakage than IDS (subgroup II) and IDS + CDO (subgroup III) (P<.001), with no significant difference between IDS and IDS + CDO.
conclusionsDigital impressions were associated with significantly lower microleakage compared to polyether impressions. IDS, with or without CDO, significantly reduced microleakage compared to delayed sealing. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Combining digital impressions with IDS may enhance the marginal seal and longevity of ceramic onlays.
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.