Trial reportJournal of applied oral science : revista FOB2019
A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results.
Trial report in Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05276154 (Clinical Performance of Thermo-Viscous Bulk-Fill Resin Composite Restorations in Comparison to Conventional Bulk-Fill Resin Composite Restorations in Posterior Teeth A Randomized Control Clinical Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 37 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.
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.
Clinical Performance of Thermo-Viscous Bulk-Fill Resin Composite Restorations in Comparison to Conventional Bulk-Fill Resin Composite Restorations in Posterior Teeth A Randomized Control Clinical Trial
Who cites it
37 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Thermal Effects of Rapid High-Intensity Light Curing on Bulk-Fill Resin-Based Composites: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical Performance of Glass Ionomer Cement in Load-Bearing Restorations: A Systematic Review.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024Pooled it
- The clinical performance of bulk-fill versus the incremental layered application of direct resin composite restorations: a systematic review.Evidence-based dentistry · 2023Pooled it
- Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2023Pooled it
- Is the clinical performance of composite resin restorations in posterior teeth similar if restored with incremental or bulk-filling techniques? A systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Pooled it
- Compliance of randomized controlled trials in posterior restorations with the CONSORT statement: a systematic review of methodology.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Pooled it
- One-year clinical evaluation of a giomer-based injectable composite compared with a highly viscous glass-ionomer cement in restoring class II cavities of primary molars: a randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Clinical performance of alkasite and glass-hybrid restorations compared with resin composite in class II cavities: a randomized clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Comparative evaluation of bioactive alkasite-based material in different application modes: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial.Odontology · 2025Trial
- A randomized prospective clinical study evaluating the effectiveness of the Beautibond Xtreme adhesive system using different bonding techniques in class I and II restorations: one-year results.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2025Trial
- Prospective, randomized clinical trial evaluating the clinical performance of a new universal adhesive in Class I and Class II restorations at 1 year.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Trial
- Clinical evaluation of SonicFill bulk resin technique in the restoration of proximal deep caries of primary molars: a two-year randomized controlled trial.BMC oral health · 2024Trial
- Sixty-month comperative evaluation of a glass hybrid restorative and a composite resin in non-carious cervical lesions of bruxist individuals.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Trial
- 3-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the performance of posterior composite restorations lined with ion-releasing materials.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- Clinical performance of a glass-hybrid system in comparison with a resin composite in two-surface class II restorations: a 5-year randomised multi-centre study.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Trial
- Survival rate of the Hall technique compared with resin composite restoration in multi-surface cavities in primary teeth: a 1-year randomized clinical trial.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2023Trial
- Randomized prospective clinical trial of class II restorations using flowable bulk-fill resin composites: 4-year follow-up.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Trial
- Six-year clinical evaluation of bulk-fill and nanofill resin composite restorations.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Trial
- Two-Year Survival of High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer in Children with Molar Incisor Hypomineralization.Medical principles and practice : international journal of the Kuwait University, Health Science Centre · 2021Trial
- Smart biomaterials in restorative dentistry: Recent advances and future perspectives.Materials today. Bio · 2025Review
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
objectivesBulk-fill restorative materials such as bulk-fill composite resins and high viscous glass ionomer cements have become very popular materials in operative dentistry because their application is easy and time-saving. The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a highly viscous reinforced glass ionomer material, a bulk-fill composite resin and a micro hybrid composite resin in Class II restorations. METHODOLOGY: In total, 109 Class II restorations were performed in 54 patients using three different restorative materials: Charisma Smart Composite (CSC); Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative (FBF); Equia Forte Fil (EF). Single Bond Universal adhesive (3M ESPE, Germany) was used with composite resin restorations. The restorations were evaluated using modified USPHS criteria in terms of retention, color match, marginal discoloration, anatomic form, contact point, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, postoperative sensitivity and surface texture. The data were analyzed using Chi-Square, Fischer's and McNemar's tests.
resultsAt the end of one year, 103 restorations were followed up. No changes were observed during the first 6 months. At the end of one year, there were small changes in composite restorations (FBF and CSC) but no statistically significant difference was observed between the clinical performances of these materials for all criteria (p>0.05). However, there was a statistically significant difference between EF, FBF and CSC groups in all parameters except marginal discoloration, secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity in one-year evaluation (p<0.05).
conclusionBulk-fill composite resins and conventional composite resins showed more successful clinical performance than highly viscous reinforced glass ionomers in Class II cavities.
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.