ArticleClinical oral investigations2021
Does a new formula have an input in the clinical success of posterior composite restorations? A chat study.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02888873 (Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Double Blind Trial of Two Universal Composites in Posterior Teeth), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 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.
Prospective, Randomized, Controlled, Double Blind Trial of Two Universal Composites in Posterior Teeth
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- One-Year Clinical Performance of Injectable and Paste-Type Composite Resins in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions Prepared with Er,Cr:YSGG Laser and Acid Etching: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Compositional boundaries for functional dental composites containing calcium orthophosphate particles.Journal of the mechanical behavior of biomedical materials · 2023Article
- Resin Composites in Posterior Teeth: Clinical Performance and Direct Restorative Techniques.Dentistry journal · 2022Review
- Patients´ satisfaction concerning direct anterior dental restoration.Brazilian dental journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the clinical behavior of a universal light-curing, ultra-fine particle hybrid composite and successor of this material in class I and II cavities after 60 months. MATERIALS AND
methodsForty patients (21 females, 19 males) with ages ranging between 18 and 38 years (23.15 ± 5.15) received 80 (13 Cl I and 67 Cl II) resin composite restorations (Charisma/Charisma Classic, Kulzer GmbH) in combination with an etch and rinse adhesive system (Gluma 2Bond) under rubber dam isolation. Two experienced operators performed all the restorations. Restorations were evaluated by the other two examiners according to the FDI criteria at baseline and at 6, 12, 18, 24, 36, 48 and 60 months. Surface characteristics of one restoration selected randomly were examined under a scanning electron microscope (SEM) at each recall. Data were analyzed statistically (p < 0.05).
resultsAfter 60 months, recall rate was 90%. None of the restorations failed. Three restorations from Charisma and 4 from the Charisma Classic group showed minor surface staining. Twelve Charisma and 14 Charisma Classic restorations were scored as 2 for margin staining. Four restorations from both groups showed minor shade deviations but no significant difference was observed between the two restorative materials for any criteria evaluated after 60 months (p > 0.05). SEM evaluations were in accordance with the clinical findings.
conclusionsBoth materials exhibited clinically similar and successful performance over the 60-month observation period. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A new formulation of resin composite may not always perform better clinical performances.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov : NCT02888873.
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.