ArticleBMC oral health2026
Microleakage of Class II composite restorations bonded with universal adhesives containing different functional monomers: 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis in vitro study aimed to evaluate and compare the microleakage of Class II composite restorations bonded with universal adhesives containing different functional monomers, with particular emphasis on a chemically cured universal adhesive applied using different etching strategies.
methodsStandardized Class II cavities were prepared in 120 extracted human molars and randomly allocated into 12 groups (n = 10) according to the adhesive system and etching strategy. The adhesives evaluated included a three-step etch-and-rinse system, a two-step self-etch system, and three universal adhesives applied in total-etch, selective-etch, and self-etch modes, including a chemically cured universal adhesive. All cavities were restored with a nanohybrid resin composite and subjected to 5000 thermocycles between 5 °C and 55 °C. Microleakage at occlusal and gingival margins was assessed using 0.5% basic fuchsin dye penetration under stereomicroscopy. Data were analyzed using non-parametric statistical tests (α = 0.05).
resultsSignificant differences in microleakage were observed among the groups (p < 0.001). The three-step etch-and-rinse adhesive demonstrated the lowest microleakage values at both occlusal and gingival margins. Universal adhesives applied in self-etch mode exhibited significantly higher microleakage, particularly at the gingival margin. The chemically cured universal adhesive showed comparable marginal sealing only when combined with phosphoric acid etching.
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this in vitro study, multi-step adhesive systems and universal adhesives used with total-etch or selective-etch strategies provided superior marginal sealing compared with single-step self-etch applications. These findings highlight the clinical importance of etching strategy selection in Class II composite restorations, particularly at gingival margins where light attenuation may compromise polymerization in deep proximal boxes.
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.