ArticleFrontiers in dental medicine2026
Effect of different scaling instruments on the roughness of esthetic resin composite restorations: an
Article in Frontiers in dental medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This Methods: Seven commercially available resin composite materials were tested: 3M™ Filtek™ Z350 XT, Beautifil II, and Beautifil II LS, G-ænial Anterior, IPS Empress Direct, Tokuyama PALFIQUE LX5, Vittra APS FKG. Disc-shaped specimens (6 mm in diameter and 2 mm in thickness) were prepared using a 3D-printed mold. A total of 30 specimens per brand were fabricated and randomly divided into three sub-groups according to the scaling technique: stainless-steel hand scaler (metal scaling), plastic hand scaler (plastic scaling), and piezoelectric ultra-sonic scaler tip (ultra-sonic scaling). Baseline surface roughness values were measured using a non-contact optical profilometer. Each specimen was then subjected to 40 scaling strokes, and post-scaling surface roughness was remeasured using the same method. The change in average surface roughness was calculated. Two and One-way ANOVA with Tukey's Results: Both scaler method and resin composite type were determinant factors ( Conclusion: Within the limitations of the study, plastic scalers caused the least surface alteration and may be considered the most conservative option for maintaining the surface smoothness of resin composites.
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.