Trial reportClinical oral investigations2021
Thirty-six-month clinical evaluation of posterior high-viscosity bulk-fill resin composite restorations in a high caries incidence population: interim results of a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled 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
- Short-term clinical and micromorphological comparison of injectable and paste composites in occlusal cavities.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Comparative evaluation of bioactive alkasite-based material in different application modes: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial.Odontology · 2025Trial
- Two-year evaluation of a nano-hybrid and a bulk-fill resin composite: a randomized, double-blind split-mouth clinical study.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Trial
- Two-year clinical performance of dual- and light-cure bulk-fill resin composites in Class ӀӀ restorations: a randomized clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Trial
- Can composite packaging and selective enamel etching affect the clinical behavior of bulk-fill composite resin in posterior restorations? 24-month results of a randomized clinical trial.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2023Trial
- Article
- Comparison of Water Sorption and Water Solubility Properties of Current Restorative Materials with Different Contents.European journal of dentistry · 2025Article
- A Blinded Comparative Study of Four Commercially Available LEDs and a Laser Light Curing Device.European journal of dentistry · 2023Article
- 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study compared the clinical performance of two bulk-fill (BF) and one conventional resin composite in a population with a high caries incidence. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 138 class I and II restorations were performed and randomly divided into three groups (n = 46) with equal allocation: Filtek BF (FBF; 3M ESPE), Tetric EvoCeram BF (TBF; Ivoclar Vivadent), and control Filtek Z250 (Z250; 3M ESPE). The evaluations were performed using the USPHS and FDI criteria at baseline and after 12 and 36 months by a previously calibrated evaluator. The Friedman and Wilcoxon tests for paired data were used for statistical analysis (α = 0.05).
resultsThe DMFT index at baseline was 9.44, with 87% from the decayed component. After 36 months, 108 restorations (n = 36) were evaluated. Two failures were observed for TBF at marginal adaptation and recurrence of caries, resulting in a survival rate of 94.44% and an annual failure rate (AFR) of 1.26%. No equivalence was observed between the criteria for surface roughness, marginal adaptation, and discoloration.
conclusionsThe 36-month clinical performance of high-viscosity BF resin composites was comparable to conventional incremental-filled resin composites. The FDI criteria better presented the restorations' clinical success. However, in the case of failure, both criteria provided the same result. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: High-viscosity bulk-fill resin composites showed excellent performance after 36 months in a high caries incidence population. It can be considered a simplified alternative restoration method that reduces operating time and minimizes possible operator errors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33821322What 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.