ArticleJournal of functional biomaterials2021
A Two-Year Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Performance of a Nanohybrid Composite Resin to a Flowable Composite Resin.
Article in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2021. 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 15 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.
Comparison of the Functional Properties of Two Injectable Materials in Posterior Teeth: Randomized Clinical Trial
Clinical Assessment of Viscosity-Modified Composite Resins: Preheated, Sonic Activated, and Flowable Resins in Class V Restorations
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- One-year clinical evaluation of a giomer-based injectable composite compared with a highly viscous glass-ionomer cement in restoring class II cavities of primary molars: a randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Short-term clinical and micromorphological comparison of injectable and paste composites in occlusal cavities.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Effects of adding graphene oxide to composite resin: An in vitrostudy.Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL · 2026Article
- Clinical Performance of Two Resin Composite Materials in Class II Cavities in Primary Molars: An Observational Study.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2026Article
- Effect of Bleaching on the Surface Roughness of Resin Composites Evaluated by Atomic Force Microscopy (AFM).Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Highly Filled Flowable Composite Resins as Sole Restorative Materials: A Systematic Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Article
- The Effect of Whitening Agents (Whitening Rinse and Carbamide Peroxide) on Stained Flowable and Packable Composite Aligner Attachments.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Effect of Newer Intraorifice Barriers on the Fracture Resistance of Endodontically Treated Teeth: An In Vitro Study.Cureus · 2024Article
- Evaluating flexure properties, hardness, roughness and microleakage of high-strength injectable dental composite: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Influence of Cavity Lining on the 3-Year Clinical Outcome of Posterior Composite Restorations: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- Effect of different cavity liners on nanocomposite resin shear bond strength to dentine.Bioinformation · 2024Article
- Color changes of nanocomposites used for clear aligner attachments: an in vitro study.Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie · 2023Article
- Chemical and Structural Assessment of New Dental Composites with Graphene Exposed to Staining Agents.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Article
- Mechanical and Biomimetic Characteristics of Bulk-Fill Resin Dental Composites Following Exposure in a Simulated Acidic Oral Environment.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis prospective in vivo study aimed to compare the clinical behavior of a flowable composite resin (Genial Universal Flo, GC) and a nanohybrid universal composite resin (Tetric Evo Ceram, Ivoclar Vivadent) used in Class I and II direct esthetic restorations in posterior teeth.
methodsA total of 108 Class I and II direct restorations were performed in patients aged between 20 and 60 years. The originality of this study lies in the fact that both materials were placed in pairs, in the same clinical environment (i.e., the same patient and the same type of tooth). The evaluations were performed now of restoration and after 2-weeks, 6-, 12-, and 24-months intervals using clinical examination, clinical photographs, and radiological examination, according to modified USPHS criteria. Statistical analysis was performed using the Fisher exact test and chi-square analysis.
resultsAt baseline, the universal composite resin showed better esthetic properties such as surface luster, surface staining marginal staining. Both materials regressed significantly over time with no significant difference between groups.
conclusionsBoth flowable and nanohybrid composite resins exhibit acceptable clinical performance. The present 24 months of evaluation of different composites showed that the G-ænial Universal Flo could be an effective esthetic material for posterior restoration. No significant difference between both materials over time concerning surface luster, surface staining, and marginal staining.
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.