ArticleBMC oral health2026
Effect of modeling liquids on surface roughness, gloss, and color stability of a nanohybrid resin composite: 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
backgroundThis study aimed to evaluate the effects of different modeling resins on the surface roughness, surface gloss, and color stability of a nanohybrid resin composite.
methodsForty disk-shaped specimens (10 mm diameter × 2 mm thickness) were fabricated from a nanohybrid resin composite (Estelite Asteria). The samples were divided into four groups (n = 10): control (no modeling liquid), Modeling Resin (Bisco Inc., Schaumburg, IL, USA), GC Modeling Liquid (GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), and Composite Wetting Resin (Ultradent Products, South Jordan, UT, USA). Specimens were prepared using incremental layering, and modeling liquids were applied using a microbrush between the composite increments to facilitate sculpting. After polymerization, all specimens were polished using a standardized Sof-Lex Polishing System. Surface gloss (GU) was measured using a glossmeter, and surface roughness (Ra) was assessed using atomic force microscopy (AFM). Color stability was evaluated using a spectrophotometer after immersion in a coffee solution for 1, 3, and 7 days. Color change was calculated using the CIELAB color system (ΔE) formula. Statistical analyses included one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Kruskal-Wallis test, and repeated measures ANOVA (p < 0.05).
resultsThe surface gloss values did not differ significantly among the groups (p > 0.05). However, the surface roughness values showed significant differences between the groups (p < 0.05), with the GC modeling liquid presenting significantly higher roughness values than the control and Ultra groups. Regarding color stability, the ΔE values increased significantly over time (p < 0.001), but no statistically significant differences were observed among the groups (p > 0.05).
conclusionThe use of modeling resins did not significantly affect the surface gloss or color stability of the tested composites. While modeling resins did not significantly affect surface gloss or color stability, certain modeling liquids resulted in a statistically significant increase in surface roughness.
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.