ArticleScientific reports2022
One-year clinical results of restorations using a novel self-adhesive resin-based bulk-fill restorative.
Article in Scientific reports, 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 16 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.
Evaluation of Micro -Tensile Bond Strength to Dentin and Color Stability of a New Self Adhesive Bulk-fill Resin Composite Restorative Material After Aging
Clinical Evaluation of Self-Adhesive Bulk-Fil Hybrid Composite Restoration in Primary Molars
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Three-Year Practice-Based Clinical Trial on the Performance of a Self-Adhesive Resin-Based Bulk-Fill Restorative.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 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
- Various ways of pre-heating a bulk-fill thermoviscous composite in restoration in non-carious cervical lesions: 12-month randomized clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Trial
- Article
- From Classical Enamel/Dentin Bonding to Self-Adhesive Composites: A Narrative Review of Current Clinical Aspects.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Immediate vs. delayed bonding to bleached enamel: an in-vitro evaluation of nanoscopic changes and bond strength.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Self-Adhesive Flowable Resin Composites-Are We Going Somewhere?Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Review
- Review
- Influence of Surface Treatments on the Bond Strength of a Self-Adhesive Bulk-Fill Composite Resin to Cut and Uncut Enamel: An In-Vitro Study.Frontiers in dentistry · 2025Article
- A Historical Perspective on Dental Composite Restorative Materials.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Review
- Assessment of the Micro-Tensile Bond Strength of a Novel Bioactive Dental Restorative Material (Surefil One).Polymers · 2024Article
- Bond Strength, Microleakage, Microgaps, and Marginal Adaptation of Self-adhesive Resin Composites to Tooth Substrates with and without Preconditioning with Universal Adhesives.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2024Article
- Comparison of Shear Bond Strength of Three Types of Adhesive Materials Used in the Restoration of Permanent Molars after Treatment with Silver Diamine Fluoride: An In Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Minimally invasive selective caries removal: a clinical guide.British dental journal · 2023Article
- Radiopaque Crystalline, Non-Crystalline and Nanostructured Bioceramics.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Cytotoxic Evaluation of the New Composite Resin through an Artificial Pulp Chamber.BioMed research international · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This prospective study assessed the dual-curing self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative Surefil one. The restorations were placed and reviewed by dental practitioners who are members of a practice-based research network in the United States. Seven practitioners filled 60 cavities (20 class I, 19 class II and 21 class V) in 41 patients with Surefil one without adhesive, according to the manufacturer's instructions. The restorations were evaluated using modified USPHS criteria at baseline, 3 months, and 1 year. Patients were also contacted to report postoperative hypersensitivity one to four weeks after placement. The only patient that showed moderate hypersensitivity after 1 year had previously reported symptoms that were unlikely associated to the class I molar restoration. One class II restoration in a fractured maxillary molar was partially lost. The remaining restorations were found to be in clinically acceptable condition resulting in an annual failure rate of 2%. Color match showed the lowest number of acceptable scores (88%) revealing significant changes over time (P = 0.0002). No significant differences were found for the other criteria (P > 0.05). The novel self-adhesive bulk-fill restorative showed clinically acceptable results in stress-bearing class I and II as well as non-retentive class V cavities at 1-year recall.
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.