ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Fluorescence compatibility of various resin composites on cervical restorations: An in-vitro evaluation.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the fluorescence compatibility of five resin composite materials in cervical restorations using multiple assessment techniques. MATERIALS AND
methodsForty extracted A2 shade human molars were selected, and standardized Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surfaces. The cavities were restored using five resin composite materials (n = 8). Fluorescence images were obtained using three assessment techniques based on fluorescence illumination: Tech-I (QrayPen C, 405 nm), Tech-II (Valo X with DSLR camera, 395-415 nm), and Tech-III (Ashur device with DSLR camera, 405 nm). Fluorescence differences (ΔE) were calculated using the CIEDE2000 formula. Statistical analyses included one-way ANOVA, Tukey post-hoc test, and Pearson correlation (p < 0.05).
resultsSignificant differences were observed among composite materials in all techniques (p < 0.001). Filtek Z250XT showed the lowest ΔE values (Tech-I: 3.83 ± 1.39, Tech-II: 3.60 ± 1.11, Tech-III: 3.41 ± 0.69), indicating the best fluorescence compatibility. Conversely, Estelite Asteria exhibited the highest ΔE values (Tech-I: 15.53 ± 3.94, Tech-II: 23.79 ± 2.72, Tech-III: 14.15 ± 2.46). Strong positive correlations were found among the techniques (Tech-I vs. Tech-II: r = 0.707; Tech-I vs. Tech-III: r = 0.774; Tech-II vs. Tech-III: r = 0.880; p < 0.001).
conclusionThe fluorescence compatibility of resin composite materials varies significantly depending on the material type. The Filtek Z250XT demonstrated the closest fluorescence compatibility to natural tooth structure. The assessment techniques showed strong agreement under standardized conditions. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Understanding the fluorescence behavior of composite materials may guide clinicians in selecting appropriate materials for improved esthetic outcomes and clinical performance.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42799931What 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.