ArticleBritish dental journal2016
Class II composite resin restorations: faster, easier, predictable.
Article in British dental journal, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictors of procedural errors in class II resin composite restorations using bitewing radiographs.The Saudi dental journal · 2024Article
- Prevalence and mean number of teeth with amalgam and nonamalgam restorations, United States, 2015 through 2018.Journal of the American Dental Association (1939) · 2023Article
- Toward a Clinically Reliable Class II Resin Composite Restoration: A Cross-Sectional Study into the Current Clinical Practice among Dentists in Saudi Arabia.International journal of dentistry · 2022Article
- Placement of Posterior Composite Restorations: A Cross-Sectional Study of Dental Practitioners in Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- A comparison of diagnosis of early stage interproximal caries with bitewing radiographs and periapical images using consensus reference.Dento maxillo facial radiology · 2019Article
- Restorative dentistry: Incredulous restorations.British dental journal · 2017Article
- Evaluation of push-out bond strength of different concentrations of chitosan nanoparticles incorporated composite resin and eighth-generation bonding agent for class II restoration: AnJournal of conservative dentistry : JCDArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Composite resin continues to displace amalgam as the preferred direct restorative material in developed countries. Even though composite materials have evolved to include nanoparticles with high physical properties and low shrinkage stress, dentists have been challenged to efficiently create quality, long lasting, predictable restorations. Unlike amalgam, composite resin cannot be condensed making the establishment of a predictable, proper contact more difficult. In addition, composite requires an understanding of adhesives and an appreciation for their exacting application. These facts combined with the precise adaptation and light-curing of multiple layers makes placement of quality Class II composite restorations tedious and time-consuming. For private practicing dentists, it can also have an effect on economic productivity. Clinicians have always wanted an easier, efficient placement technique for posterior composite restorations that rivals that for amalgam. It appears that advances in instrumentation, materials and technology have finally delivered it.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27857099What 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.