ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Evaluation of the Effect of Radiation on the Marginal Adaptation of Different Composite Restorative Materials: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRadiotherapy is an essential component of the management of head and neck cancers; however, it adversely affects both dental hard tissues and restorative materials, potentially compromising the marginal integrity of restorations. As marginal adaptation is a key determinant of restoration longevity, evaluating the performance of different resin-based restorative materials under irradiated conditions is of clinical importance. The aim of this study was to comparatively evaluate the effect of therapeutic radiation on the marginal gap of different composite restorative materials using an in vitro model. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 36 freshly extracted human premolars were randomly assigned to four groups (n = 9 each) according to the restorative material used: nanofilled composite resin, giomer, ormocer, and bulk-fill flowable composite (SureFil SDR Flow Plus, Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC). Standard class V cavities were prepared and restored according to the manufacturers' recommendations. The marginal gap at the tooth and filling material junction was assessed using scanning electron microscopy before and after exposure to a cumulative radiation dose of 70 Gy, delivered according to the conventional head and neck radiotherapy protocol. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA), Tukey's honestly significant difference post-hoc test, paired t-test, and Shapiro-Wilk test. Statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsBefore radiation exposure, a statistically significant difference in the marginal gap was observed between the four restorative materials (p < 0.001). Ormocer exhibited the lowest mean marginal gap (4.27 ± 0.32 µm), whereas giomer demonstrated the highest (6.30 ± 0.42 µm). After radiation exposure, the significant intergroup differences persisted (p < 0.001). Ormocer continued to show the lowest marginal gap (4.86 ± 0.30 µm), while SureFil SDR Flow Plus exhibited the highest (7.08 ± 0.30 µm). Intragroup analysis revealed a significant increase in the marginal gap following radiation exposure for all restorative materials (p < 0.05), with the greatest effect observed in the SureFil SDR Flow Plus group (Cohen's d = 2.38).
conclusionTherapeutic radiation significantly increased the marginal gap of all evaluated restorative materials. Among the materials tested, ormocer demonstrated the best marginal adaptation and the greatest resistance to radiation-induced deterioration, suggesting its potential clinical advantage in restoring teeth in patients undergoing head and neck radiotherapy.
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.