ArticleScientific reports2026
Effect of deep margin elevation with different base materials on periodontal health in a clinical study.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This prospective clinical investigation evaluated the effects of proximal box elevation using three base materials on periodontal tissues in premolar teeth treated with direct composite restorations. In endodontically treated maxillary premolars, gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) samples were collected after restoring cavities using three base materials: resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), flowable composite (Tetric N-Flow), and injectable hybrid composite (Beautifil Flow Plus). Periodontal health was assessed by measuring interleukin-1 (IL-1) and tumor necrosis factor (TNF) concentrations, bleeding on probing (BOP), and pocket depth (PD) immediately and at 3 months postoperatively. Data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA to compare groups, Levene's test to assess homogeneity of variances, and paired t-tests and chi-square tests were used to assess differences within groups. the results revealed that the levels of IL-1, TNF, and PD differed significantly among the three base materials at different time points. The Beautifil Flow Plus group showed the highest TNF levels, the most substantial absolute reduction, and the lowest reduction in IL-1 levels. However, there were no significant differences in BOP among the three materials at any time interval. Within the limitations of this three-month study, all materials were clinically acceptable, though Tetric N-Flow and RM-GI showed a more favorable short-term inflammatory profile than Beautifil Flow Plus. However, due to the limited sample size and short follow-up, no definitive claims regarding long-term periodontal compatibility or clinical superiority can be made.
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.