Trial reportClinical oral investigations2022
Six-year clinical evaluation of bulk-fill and nanofill resin composite restorations.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 20 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.
Clinical Performance of Injectable Universal Flowable Composite Versus Conventional Resin Composite Restorations in Proximal Cavities of Posterior Teeth.
Comparison of Postoperative Sensitivity in Posterior Teeth Using Conventional and Bulkfill Composites
Who cites it
20 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical performance of a bulk-fill versus a nanofilled resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions with different extensions: a 6-years randomized, parallel, double-blind clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Fracture resistance of molars with class II MOD cavities restored with bulk-fill, no-cap flowable bulk-fill, and conventional resin composite restorative systems after 6-months water storage.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Impact of repeated preheating of bulk-fill resin composite on postoperative hypersensitivity; a randomized controlled clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2024Trial
- 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
- Randomized prospective clinical trial of class II restorations using flowable bulk-fill resin composites: 4-year follow-up.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Trial
- Model-Based Cost-Effectiveness of Direct Restorations: Amalgam Dominates.Community dentistry and oral epidemiology · 2026Article
- Clinical comparison of direct and indirect class II composite restorations: a prospective 12-month follow-up study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- The long-term oral health consequences of an amalgam phase-out.British dental journal · 2025Review
- Effect of polishing systems on the roughness, color, and staining of conventional and bulk-fill resin composites with and without S-PRG filler.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Comparison of the 2-year clinical performances of class II restorations using different restorative materials.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Five-year survival of class II restorations with and without base bulk-fill composite: a retrospective cohort study.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- Alkasite restorative material for endodontically treated teeth: a randomized controlled pilot study.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2024Article
- Effect of ultra-fast high-intensity light-curing on the properties of a new bulk-fill restorative resin composite system: A Scoping Review.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2024Article
- A Blinded Comparative Study of Four Commercially Available LEDs and a Laser Light Curing Device.European journal of dentistry · 2023Article
- Resin Composites in Posterior Teeth: Clinical Performance and Direct Restorative Techniques.Dentistry journal · 2022Review
- 12-months Clinical Evaluation of Fiber Reinforced Bulk Fill Resin Composite versus Incremental Packing of Nanohybrid Resin Composite in Restoration of Deep Proximal Lesions of Permanent Molars: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Acta stomatologica Croatica · 2022Article
- One-year clinical results of restorations using a novel self-adhesive resin-based bulk-fill restorative.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- Article
- Assessing Fracture Resistance of Restored Premolars with Novel Composite Materials: An In Vitro Study.International journal of dentistry · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aims to compare the performance of a bulk-fill and a nanofill resin composite in class II restorations after 6 years. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty patients having at least two class II carious lesions were recruited for the study. One lesion in each patient was randomly assigned to be restored using either the Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (TB) or Filtek Ultimate (FU) resin composites with their respective adhesives. One hundred four restorations were placed by two calibrated operators. Restorations were evaluated at baseline and annually over the course of 6 years by two examiners using modified USPHS criteria. Data were statistically analyzed using the Chi-square and Cochran Q tests (p < 0.05).
resultsSixty-six restorations in 33 patients were evaluated after 6 years. Only one restoration was lost from FU group at 5 years. At the end of 6 years, marginal discoloration was observed in three (9.1%) TB and eight (36.4%) FU restorations creating a significant difference between the groups (p < 0.05). The FU group showed a significant increase in marginal discoloration at 6 years from the baseline (p < 0.05). Marginal adaptation was rated as Bravo for 9.1% and 24.2% of TB and FU restorations, respectively (p > 0.05). Significant degradation was observed within each group in terms of marginal adaptation (p < 0.05). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for the other criteria tested (p > 0.05).
conclusionsBulk-fill restorations performed better for marginal discoloration. The remaining clinical performance criteria of bulk-fill and nanofill resin composite restorations were similar after 6 years. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Bulk-fill resin might be a better alternative to incrementally placed restorative in terms of marginal discoloration under clinical conditions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34110494What 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.