Microleakage of Class II posterior composite restorations with gingival margins placed entirely within dentin.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Composite restorations are more frequently being placed with margins apical to the cementoenamel junction. However, margins within dentin are prone to microleakage. The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate various restorative procedures in terms of their ability to reduce microleakage in posterior composite restorations with gingival margins within dentin. We also examined the effect of staining time on microleakage. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mesio-occlusal and disto-occlusal preparations were made in 50 extracted molars. Teeth were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 5 treatments followed by restoration with Z100 composite resin: acid etch (control); Clearfil SE Bond; Prompt-L-Pop; Vitrebond/Scotchbond Multipurpose Plus (closed-sandwich technique); or Geristore/Tenure (open-sandwich technique). After 48 hours of water storage followed by sectioning buccolingually, 1 restoration from each tooth was randomly assigned to either 2- or 4-hour immersion in 50% by weight silver nitrate solution. Restorations were removed and gingival floors analyzed to determine the percentage of surface area stained in each of 3 0.5-mm wide zones. RESULTS: Repeated measures ANOVA did not reveal statistically significant differences in staining for 2 and 4 hours. Compared with the control group, Clearfil SE bond produced statistically significant reductions in leakage in all 3 zones. Prompt-L-Pop did not reduce leakage significantly except in zone 3 (closest to the pulp). Vitrebond and Geristore both reduced microleakage in zones 2 and 3, but the reduction was greater with the use of Vitrebond. CONCLUSION: Both Clearfil SE Bond and Vitrebond in a closed-sandwich technique were effective methods for reducing microleakage within dentin.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".