Trial reportClinical oral investigations2022
Eight-year clinical evaluation of two types of resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical performance of a bulk-fill versus a nanofilled resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions with different extensions: a 6-years randomized, parallel, double-blind clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Selected Properties of Composite Materials Used for Dental Fillings-Methodological Development and Preliminary Results.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Effect of Silicon Carbide Fiber Length on the Flexural Strength and Flexural Modulus of Short Silicon Carbide Fiber-Reinforced Resin.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Article
- Effect of laser bleaching, ultrasonic scaling and powered tooth brushing on surface roughness and bacterial adherence of class V composite restorations.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesIn this clinical study, the 8-year clinical performances of a flowable resin composite was compared with that of a conventional resin composite. MATERIALS AND
methodsNinety non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) in 19 participants were involved in this trial. NCCLs were restored with a flowable composite (Clearfil Flow FX: FX, Kuraray Noritake, Japan) or a conventional resin composite (Clearfil AP-X: AP) in conjunction with a one-step self-etch adhesive (Clearfil S3 Bond). Each participant had both types of resin composite restorations that were randomly allocated. The restorations were evaluated at baseline and annually up to 8 years using modified USPHS criteria. The data were statistically analyzed using the Fisher's exact test, Kaplan-Meier method, and a multivariate Cox-regression with frailty models (p < 0.05).
resultsThe 8-year participant recall rate was 95%. One hundred percent retention was recorded for AP, whereas four out of 46 restorations were lost for FX during the 8 years. The incidence of marginal staining increased over time regardless of the type of resin composite, showing 48% for AP and 57% for FX after 8 years. Wear of the resin composite occurred only for the flowable material and there was a significant difference between the types of resin composite (p = 0.024). Overall survival rates at 8 years for AP and FX were 98% and 82% respectively (p = 0.110).
conclusionsThe flowable resin composite presented lower wear resistance and showed a lower survival rate compared with the conventional composite after eight years of clinical service. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Flowable resin composites may show greater wear after long-term clinical service. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: UMIN000028745, Date of registration: August 19, 2017.
Indexed as
Identifiers
35751704What 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.