ArticleBMC oral health2026
Effect of bioactive and conventional liners on marginal sealing and dentin bond strength of Class V resin composite restorations: 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this in vitro study was to evaluate the effects of different cavity liners on microleakage and microtensile bond strength (µTBS) between composite restorations and dentin. METHODOLOGY: Seventy-five extracted human third molars were randomly allocated into five groups for microleakage evaluation, eight teeth were assigned to each group, whereas seven teeth per group were used for microtensile bond strength testing. These Class V cavities were created. Meanwhile, seven samples were utilized for µTBS testing. Group 1 (control): Filtek Z250, Group 2: Filtek Supreme Flowable Restorative, Group 3: Glass Liner, Group 4: ACTIVA BioACTIVE Restorative, Group 5: TheraBase Ca. The specimens were exposed to 10,000 thermocycles (5-55 °C) and 50,000 mechanical loading cycles (100 N). For microleakage testing, the specimens were then immersed in a 2% methylene blue solution for precisely 24 h in order to facilitate penetration, and then buccolingual sections were taken and examined with a stereomicroscope. Sections were taken from the teeth and tested for µTBS using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 0.5 mm/min. The data were then analyzed.
resultsSignificant differences in microleakage scores were observed among the groups (p = 0.008). The control group demonstrated significantly lower microleakage than the flowable composite liner group, whereas no significant differences were observed among the remaining groups. µTBS values also differed significantly among the groups (p < 0.001). Group 3 (Glass Liner) demonstrated the highest bond strength values, whereas Group 5 (TheraBase Ca) demonstrated the lowest values. Overall, liner type did not appear to substantially influence composite microleakage, whereas dentin bond strength varied among the tested liner materials.
conclusionWithin the limitations of this in vitro study, liner type did not appear to substantially influence composite microleakage, whereas dentin bond strength varied among the tested liner materials. Further studies are required to confirm these findings.
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.