ArticleThe journal of adhesive dentistry2026
The Effect of Different Types of Adhesive Systems on Marginal Integrity of Class II Resin Composite Restoration.
Article in The journal of adhesive dentistry, 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
purposeTo evaluate the marginal integrity of cervical margin relocation (CMR) or deep margin elevation (DME) restorations using a universal adhesive in etch-and-rinse and self-etch modes, compared to gold-standard systems after 6-month water aging. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Standardized mesial and distal Class II cavities were prepared in 32 human maxillary premolars. Specimens were assigned to four groups according to adhesive systems and modes: OFL (OptiBond FL), CSE (Clearfil SE Bond), UER (Single Bond Universal; etch-and-rinse), and USE (Single Bond Universal; self-etch) (n = 16 per group). After DME/CMR and final restoration, specimens were stored in 37°C distilled water for 6 months. Marginal integrity was assessed qualitatively via micro-CT by two calibrated observers and quantitatively via 0.5% methylene blue dye. Data were analyzed using weighted kappa coefficient, Wilcoxon signed-rank test, two-way repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), and one-way ANOVA with Games-Howell post-hoc tests (α = 0.05).
resultsMicro-CT showed high inter-examiner reliability (κ = 0.84) and stable interfacial adaptation across groups post-aging. However, dye penetration revealed that adhesive mode significantly affected microleakage (p 0.05), while proximal box concavity geometry had no significant effect (p > 0.05). The USE group exhibited the lowest mean microleakage (0.94 ± 0.62 mm), showing no significant differences from OFL and CSE. The UER group showed the highest mean microleakage (1.48 ± 0.09 mm), which was significantly higher than the USE group (p 0.05).
conclusionWithin the limitations of this study, the self-etch application of universal adhesives provided superior durability of marginal seals for DME compared to the etch-and-rinse mode. Optimizing matrix application also minimized the influence of concavity geometry.
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.