ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2026
Influence of cavity margin location and preparation technique on microleakage of Class V composite restorations: An in vitro study.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The characteristics of the prepared dental substrate and the cavity preparation technique may influence the quality of the adhesive interface and the marginal sealing of composite restorations. Ultrasonic cavity preparation using Chemical Vapor Deposition (CVD) diamond tips has been proposed as a minimally invasive alternative to conventional rotary instrumentation. This study aimed to evaluate the influence of cavity preparation techniques and cavity margin location on the microleakage of Class V composite resin restorations. Materials and Methods: Twenty-four sound human third molars were used to prepare 48 standardized Class V cavities located at the cemento-enamel junction. Cavities were prepared using either a conventional high-speed diamond bur (KG Sorensen®) or an ultrasonic CVD diamond tip (CVDentus®). All preparations were restored with a fifth-generation etch-and-rinse adhesive system and a microhybrid composite resin. Following storage in distilled water at 37°C for seven days, specimens were immersed in 0.5% rhodamine B solution for 24 h, sectioned longitudinally, and evaluated under stereomicroscopy (40×). Microleakage was scored using a four-point ordinal scale. Data were analyzed using the Friedman nonparametric test and multiple comparisons (α=0.05). Results: The highest microleakage scores were observed in cavities with dentin margins. Mean rank values were 3.46 for the conventional bur/dentin group, 1.69 for the conventional bur/enamel group, 3.10 for the ultrasonic CVD/dentin group, and 1.75 for the ultrasonic CVD/enamel group. Groups with dentin margins showed significantly greater microleakage than enamel margins (p<0.05), whereas no significant differences were observed between conventional and ultrasonic cavity preparation (p>0.05). Conclusions: Cavity margin location significantly influenced microleakage, whereas the cavity preparation technique did not. Dentin margins exhibited significantly greater dye penetration than enamel margins regardless of the preparation method. Ultrasonic cavity preparation using CVD diamond tips demonstrated marginal sealing comparable to conventional rotary instrumentation and may be considered a viable alternative for minimally invasive restorative procedures.
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.