ArticleOdontology2022
Fracture strength of extended class I composite restorations with different restorative techniques.
Article in Odontology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Influence of Placement Techniques on Marginal Integrity, Wear Behavior, and Clinical Efficiency of a Bulk-Fill Resin Composite.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Fracture strength and ribbond fibers: In vitro analysis of mod restorations.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2023Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the fracture strength of extended Class I restorations with different restorative techniques using nanofilled and nanohybrid composites. Sixty extracted human third molars were prepared with extended Class I cavities and divided into six groups: groups FS-F (Filtek bulk-fill Flow + Filtek Supreme Ultra, 3 M) and GR-F (X-tra base + GrandioSO, VOCO), restored with a flowable bulk-fill composite as a base covered by a nanofilled or nanohybrid composite; groups FB (Filtek One Bulk-Fill, 3 M) and AF (Admira Fusion X-tra, VOCO), restored with a bulk-fill resin composite; and groups FS (Filtek Supreme Ultra, 3 M) and GR (GrandioSO, VOCO), restored incrementally with a nanofilled or nanohybrid composite. Sound extracted teeth (n = 10) were used as a control group (CTL). The specimens were axially loaded until failure. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Games Howell test (α = 0.05). Groups CTL and GR-F demonstrated significantly higher mean fracture strength when compared to FS, AF, and GR (p < 0.05). Group AF obtained more repairable fractures than the other groups. Restorations made with a nanofilled bulk-fill composite or with conventional resin composites associated with a flowable bulk-fill base were able to reestablish the fracture strength to that of sound teeth.
Indexed as
Identifiers
34519962What 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.