Trial reportClinical oral investigations2022
One-year results of a novel self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative and a conventional bulk-fill composite in class II cavities-a randomized clinical split-mouth study.
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 11 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.
Evaluation of Micro -Tensile Bond Strength to Dentin and Color Stability of a New Self Adhesive Bulk-fill Resin Composite Restorative Material After Aging
Comparison of Postoperative Sensitivity in Posterior Teeth Using Conventional and Bulkfill Composites
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical performance of self-adhesive resin composite direct restorations in permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Pooled it
- Effect of deep margin elevation with different injectable materials on performance of CAD/CAM-Fabricated nanoceramic-resin onlays: 3-year 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
- 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
- Randomized Clinical Split-Mouth Study on Partial Ceramic Crowns Luted with a Self-adhesive Resin Cement with or without Selective Enamel Etching: Long-Term Results after 15 Years.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2023Trial
- Comparison of post-treatment complications of conventional composites versus self-adhering composites: a review.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2026Review
- Review
- Adaptation and Bonding of Bulk-Fill Composites in Deep Preparations.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Marginal Quality and Wear of Bulk-Fill Composites: Differences Between Dentitions.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2025Article
- A 23-Year Observational Follow-Up Clinical Evaluation of Direct Posterior Composite Restorations.Dentistry journal · 2023Article
- One-year clinical results of restorations using a novel self-adhesive resin-based bulk-fill restorative.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIn the context of the phase-down of amalgam, development of easily applicable, permanent restorative materials is of high clinical interest. Aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a novel, tooth-colored, self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative (SABF, 3M Oral Care) and a conventional bulk-fill composite (Filtek One, 3M Oral Care; FOBF) for restoring class II cavities. The null-hypothesis tested was that both materials perform similar regarding clinical performance. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this randomized split-mouth study, 30 patients received one SABF and one FOBF restoration each. Scotchbond Universal (3M Oral Care) was used as adhesive for FOBF (self-etch mode), while SABF was applied directly without adhesive. Restorations were evaluated by two blinded examiners at baseline, 6 months and 12 months employing FDI criteria. Non-parametric statistical analyses and χ
resultsThirty patients (60 restorations) were available for the 6- and 12-month recalls exhibiting 100% restoration survival. All restorations revealed clinically acceptable FDI scores at all time points and for all criteria. Only regarding esthetic properties, FOBF performed significantly better than SABF regarding surface lustre (A1) and color match and translucency (A3) at all time points and marginal staining (A2b) at 12 months.
conclusionsThe null-hypothesis could not be rejected. Both materials performed similarly regarding clinical performance within the first year of clinical service. SABF exhibited slightly inferior, but clinically fully acceptable esthetic properties as compared to FOBF. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Within the limitations of this study, the self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative showed promising results and may be recommended for clinical use.
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.