ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2026
Decoding marginal adaptation and microleakage: A field emission scanning electron microscopy and stereomicroscopic evaluation of cavity liners under class II composite restorations.
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Context: Esthetics are in high demand in modern dentistry; conservative dentistry offers tooth-colored restorative materials; however, drawbacks such as polymerization shrinkage can lead to microleakage. To minimize this problem, cavity liners are used. Aim: To compare the marginal adaptation and microleakage of different cavity liners under composite restorations using field emission scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and stereomicroscope, respectively. Subjects and Methods: Sixty extracted human premolars and molars were collected, and Class II cavities involving the distal and occlusal surfaces were prepared. The samples were randomly divided into four groups: Group I - Biodentine, Group II - Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC), Group III - Resin-modified calcium silicate (TheraCal LC), and Group IV - Direct composite without cavity liner (control). After liner application in Groups I-III, all cavities were etched, bonded, and restored with composite. The teeth were then immersed in 2% buffered methylene blue dye and sectioned longitudinally in the mesiodistal direction. Statistical Analysis Used: Marginal adaptation was evaluated under a stereomicroscope, and interfacial gaps were examined using SEM the Kruskal-Wallis test and Results: TheraCal LC showed the least microleakage, followed by Biodentine and RMGIC, while the control group exhibited significant microleakage. SEM analysis revealed no significant difference between TheraCal LC and Biodentine in marginal adaptation, with the largest gaps observed in the control group. Conclusion: TheraCal LC demonstrated superior performance in terms of both microleakage and marginal adaptation and may be preferred as a cavity liner in Class II cavities.
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.