ArticlePolymers2022
Mechanical Behavior of Alkasite Posterior Restorations in Comparison to Polymeric Materials: A 3D-FEA Study.
Article in Polymers, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical performance of alkasite and glass-hybrid restorations compared with resin composite in class II cavities: a randomized clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Comparative Finite Element Analysis of Stress Concentration in Class V Lower Premolar Cavities Differently Restored by Adhesive Dental Materials.European journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Bioactive Fillers in Bulk-Fill Composite Resins: A Comprehensive Review of the Effects on Polymerization Shrinkage Behavior and Mechanical Performance.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Review
- Comparative Analysis of Flexural and Compressive Strengths of Bioactive Alkasite Compared to Other Ion-Releasing Restorative Materials.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Fluoride and Calcium Release from Alkasite and Glass Ionomer Restorative Dental Materials: In Vitro Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present investigation evaluated the effect of the combination of different dental filling materials in Class I cavities under occlusal loading using three-dimensional finite elements analysis (FEA). Six computer-generated and restored models of a lower molar were created in the CAD software and compared according to the biomechanical response during chewing load condition. Two adhesively bonded bulk restorative materials [bulk-fill resin composite (BF) or Alkasite (Alk)] were evaluated with or without the presence of a base material below (flowable resin composite or glass ionomer cement). A food bolus was placed on the occlusal surface mimicking the compressive occlusal load (600 N) during the static linear analysis. The maximum principal stress (tensile) was calculated as stress criteria in enamel, dentin and restoration. All models showed high stresses along the enamel/restoration margin with a similar stress trend for models restored with the same upper-layer material. Stress values up to 12.04 MPa (Alk) or up to 11.12 MPa (BF) were recorded at the enamel margins. The use of flexible polymeric or ionic base material in combination with bulk-fill resin composite or Alk did not reduce the stress magnitude in dentine and enamel. Class I cavities adhesively restored with bulk-fill resin composite showed lighter stress concentration as well as Alk. Therefore, adhesively bonded Alk restoration showed a promising mechanical behavior when used with different base materials or as a bulk restoration for posterior Class I cavity.
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.