ArticleRestorative dentistry & endodontics2026
Microbial leakage and marginal adaptation of alkasite restorative material in Class II cavities: an in vitro study.
Article in Restorative dentistry & 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to determine the relationship between the interfacial properties of proximal cavities (microbial leakage and marginal adaptation) and restorative materials (alkasite, resin composite, and glass hybrid). Methods: This study involved 66 human third molars that were left intact. Standardized Class II cavities were done on the mesial surface. The samples were then divided into five groups: (i) Cention N (CN, Ivoclar Vivadent), (ii) Filtek Z350XT (FZ, 3M ESPE), (iii) EQUIA Forte (GC Corporation), and (iv) two controls. For 40 days, a dual-chamber model containing Streptococcus mutans was used to study microbial leakage. Qualitative assessments of the sectioned samples were also carried out using a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Moreover, this study employed descriptive and Kaplan-Meier analyses, alongside a one-way analysis of variance for additional descriptive comparisons (p < 0.05). Results: Across different restorative materials, notable variations in microbial leakage were recorded. From the supplementary analysis between CN and FZ, a statistically significant difference was demonstrated (p = 0.037). In comparison to other restorative systems, CN also produced a prolonged mean time before microbial leakage occurred. For the interfacial properties of the restorative systems, illustrative information was offered via the SEM images. Conclusions: Regarding microbial leakage, all restorative systems presented their occurrence (despite the constraints of this study). When assessing CN and FZ restorative systems, a slower rate of microbial leakage was also concluded for CN. For the tooth-restoration interface, qualitative data were verified through SEM observations.
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.