ArticleJournal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.]2026
Influence of Cavity Design, Bonding-Banding Sequence, and Thermomechanical Loading on the Marginal Adaptation of Class II Resin Composite Restorations.
Article in Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.], 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
objectiveTo evaluate whether differences exist in marginal adaptation among beveled and non-beveled cavity designs, different bonding-banding sequences, and before and after thermomechanical loading.
methodsForty molars received occluso-mesial preparations and were assigned to two groups: box-shaped cavities (n = 20) and cavities with buccal and palatal bevels (n = 20). Each group was subdivided based on whether adhesive was applied before or after matrix band placement. Restorations were replicated in epoxy, and marginal adaptation at proximal buccal, palatal, and gingival interfaces was examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) at ×200 magnification, using percentage of continuous margin (%CM) and by World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria after 24 h and after thermomechanical loading.
resultsCavity design did not significantly influence marginal adaptation. Bonding before banding improved immediate %CM at buccal-palatal margins. Thermomechanical loading significantly reduced %CM in all groups, while none of the tested variables influenced FDI scores.
conclusionsProximal beveling had no effect on adaptation. Bonding before banding enhanced immediate %CM values, with no significant effect after aging. Aging reduced %CM across all margins. SEM was more sensitive than FDI criteria in detecting marginal discrepancies. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Bonding before banding may improve immediate margins, though aging compromises adaptation.
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.