ArticleBMC oral health2026
Microstructural characterization of enamel at different walls of Class II cavities.
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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveEnamel microstructure critically determines its biomechanical behavior and adhesive interface quality. This study aimed to characterize the site-specific microstructure of enamel at different walls of a Class II cavity and to elucidate its potential influence on bonding and marginal integrity.
methodsA standardized Class II cavity was prepared on the mesial surface of four human maxillary first premolars. Enamel from the gingival, buccal, lingual, and proximal walls (mesial) was sectioned, acid-etched, and examined using scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
resultsThe gingival wall exhibited a homogeneous structure of parallel-oriented prisms without Hunter-Schreger bands (HSBs). In contrast, the buccal, lingual, and proximal walls (mesial) showed a bilayered architecture: an outer layer of parallel prisms and an inner layer of decussating prisms forming distinct HSB patterns.
conclusionBased on the SEM observations, the gingival wall's uniformly parallel prismatic structure may contribute to its susceptibility to adhesive failure and marginal fracture, potentially explaining its clinical vulnerability to secondary caries. From a microstructural perspective, selective bevel preparation at the gingival wall may be hypothesized to improve bonding at this site, as it reorients the adhesion interface toward transversely cut prism ends, potentially enhancing mechanical retention and reducing enamel cohesive failure. Further studies are needed to test this hypothesis.
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.