SynthesisClinical oral investigations2022
Is the clinical performance of composite resin restorations in posterior teeth similar if restored with incremental or bulk-filling techniques? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical performance of single shade universal resin composites: a randomized controlled one year follow-up study.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Clinical, radiographic and biochemical assessment of proximal cavities restored with composite resin using incremental vs. bulk packing techniques: One-year randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2024Trial
- Impact of repeated preheating of bulk-fill resin composite on postoperative hypersensitivity; a randomized controlled clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2024Trial
- Trial
- 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
- Influence of Placement Techniques on Marginal Integrity, Wear Behavior, and Clinical Efficiency of a Bulk-Fill Resin Composite.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Review
- Influence of filling technique on fracture resistance of giomer-restored MOD-cavities.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Evaluation of Internal and Marginal Shrinkage Stress in Adhesive Class III Cavities Restored with Different Resin Composite Combinations-A 3D-FEA Study.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Marginal Quality and Wear of Bulk-Fill Composites: Differences Between Dentitions.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2025Article
- Resin composite aggregated S-PRG particles are not superior to non-S-PRG under microcosm biofilm.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Five-year survival of class II restorations with and without base bulk-fill composite: a retrospective cohort study.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- A Blinded Comparative Study of Four Commercially Available LEDs and a Laser Light Curing Device.European journal of dentistry · 2023Article
- Marginal Adaptation of In Vitro Class II Restorations Made Out of Bulk or Conventional Composite Using Single- or Multi-Layered Techniques.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesA systematic review was performed to analyze the clinical performance of class I and II restorations in posterior teeth placed with the incremental or the bulk-filling techniques. The primary outcome was retention/fracture rate, and the secondary outcomes evaluated were anatomical form, surface texture, color match, marginal adaption, marginal discoloration, caries, and postoperative sensitivity.
methodsElectronic and manual searches were performed for randomized clinical trials comparing the clinical performance of composite resin restorations in posterior teeth placed with the incremental or the bulk-filling techniques. The Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool was used to assess the quality of the studies and the GRADE tool was used to access the quality of the evidence.
resultsFourteen studies were included in this systematic review and most of them had unclear risk of bias. The risk difference (RD) for retention/fracture was 0.00 (95%CI = - 0.01, 0.01; p = 0.86) for 1-1.5 years of follow-up; 0.00 (95%CI = - 0.02, 0.02; p = 0.88) for 2-3 years of follow-up; 0.05 (95%CI = - 0.08, 0.18; p = 0.46) for 5 or more years of follow-up. The RD for postoperative sensitivity was 0.04 (95%CI = - 0.02, 0.10; p = 0.18) for up to 30 days; 0.00 (95%CI = - 0.01, 0.02; p = 0.63) for 1-1.5 years of follow-up; and 0.00 (95%CI = - 0.01, 0.02; p = 0.71) for 2-3 years of follow-up. For the other secondary outcomes, no significant differences were observed (p > 0.05) between the restorative techniques. The certainty of evidence was graded as moderate.
conclusionsThe clinical performance of class I and II restorations in posterior teeth is similar when placed with the incremental and bulk-filling techniques. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Based on the results of this study, posterior restorations placed with bulk-filling technique present satisfactory clinical performance, which is similar to direct restorations placed with the conventional incremental technique, considering various follow-up periods evaluated.
trial registrationCRD42018108450.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35031879What 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.