Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42701597›Full record

ArticleBioinformation2026

Comparative evaluation of microleakage and internal voids in class II restorations using open sandwich technique: An

Kirti Rathee, Reena Rani, Parthivi Singh, Heena Gandhi, Lakshika Sharma, Sagar Hiwale

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Bioinformation, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Kirti RatheeDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Institute of Dental Studies & Technologies, Modinagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Reena RaniDepartment of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Santosh Dental College and Hospital, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Parthivi SinghDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Peoples Dental Academy, Peoples University, Bhopal Madhya Pradesh, India.
Heena GandhiDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India.
Lakshika SharmaDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, ITS Dental College, Muradnagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Sagar HiwaleDepartment of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Inderprastha Dental College and Hospital, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The achievement of a durable and hermetic seal at the tooth restoration interface remains a significant challenge in restorative dentistry, particularly with Class II composite restorations. Therefore, it is of interest to compare microleakage and internal voids in Class II restorations using different intermediate materials in the open sandwich technique. The materials evaluated included ACTIVA Bioactive, Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC), Smart Dentin Replacement (SDR) and a control group with nanohybrid composite. Data showed that ACTIVA Bioactive showed the least microleakage and void formation, followed by RMGIC and SDR. Thus, we show the superior performance of bioactive materials in improving marginal sealing and reducing void formation in composite restorations.

Indexed as

ACTIVA BioactiveClass II restorationscomposite restorationinternal voidsMicroleakagesandwich technique

Identifiers

PMID42701597
PMCPMC13545924

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.