ArticleJournal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry
Comparative Evaluation of Postoperative Sensitivity in Bulk Fill Restoratives: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community Dentistry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06183320 (Can Flowable Bulk Fill Composites be Used in Proximal Area of Class II Restorations), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 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.
Can Flowable Bulk Fill Composites be Used in Proximal Area of Class II Restorations: A Double-blinded Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative evaluation of bioactive alkasite-based material in different application modes: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial.Odontology · 2025Trial
- 3-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the performance of posterior composite restorations lined with ion-releasing materials.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- Clinical effectiveness of alkasite versus nanofilled resin composite in the restoration of occlusal carious lesions in permanent molar teeth of children: a randomized clinical trial.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2023Trial
- Evaluation of postoperative sensitivity in restorations with self-adhesive resin: a randomized split-mouth design controlled study.Clinical oral investigations · 2020Trial
- Evaluation of Clinical Performance of Alkasite Restorative Materials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Review
- Clinical Evaluation of Chemically Cured Conventional Glass Ionomer after Light Emitting Diode Radiant Heat Enhancement: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Article
- Article
- Assessment of remineralisation potentials of bioactive dental composite using an in-vitro demineralised dentine model.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2022Article
- One-year clinical results of restorations using a novel self-adhesive resin-based bulk-fill restorative.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Article
- Phosphate Ion Release and Alkalizing Potential of Three Bioactive Dental Materials in Comparison with Composite Resin.International journal of dentistry · 2021Article
- Evaluation of clinical efficacy of Cention N and Tetric N-ceram in class I carious lesion in primary mandibular molars.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimComparative evaluation of postoperative sensitivity (POS) among three bulk fill restorative materials (Cention N, Equia Forte, Activa™ Bioactive restorative) in Class I posterior restorations. MATERIALS AND
methodsOne hundred and forty-four patients having occlusal caries were arbitrarily selected and divided into three groups. Standardized Class I cavity was prepared and restored with Cention N, Equia forte, and Activa™ Bioactive restorative material. POS of restored tooth was assessed with a standardized cold test and air stimulus by air blow from the air syringe. Patient responses were assessed at an interval of 24 h, 1 week, and 1 month using a visual analog scale. Statistical analysis was performed using paired
resultsThe statistical analysis showed a significant difference in the clinical evaluation of POS at 24 h interval among three groups (Cention N, Activa™ Bioactive Restorative, Equia forte). However, following 1 week and 1 month, there is no significant difference in Group C (Activa™ Bioactive Restorative).
conclusionPOS was seen more in Cention N contrast to Equia forte and Activa™ bioactive restorative material.
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.