ArticleScientific reports2022
Marginal integrity of classical and bulk-fill composite restorations in permanent and primary molars.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative evaluation of clinical performance of bulk-fill composites with incrementally layered conventional composites.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Influence of high-irradiance light curing on the marginal integrity of composite restorations in primary teeth.BMC oral health · 2023Trial
- Micro-CT evaluation of internal adaptation in composite restorations using incremental and sonic-activated techniques.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Cytotoxicity of Bulk-Fill Composites on Stem Cells from Human Exfoliated Deciduous Teeth-An In Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Micro-CT Assessment of Internal and External Void Formation in Class II Restorations of Primary Molars Using Bulk-Fill Composites.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Marginal Quality and Wear of Bulk-Fill Composites: Differences Between Dentitions.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2025Article
- Comparison of Class II Bulk-Fill, Self-Adhesive Composites, Alkasite, and High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer Restorations in Terms of Marginal and Internal Adaptation.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Kinetic of Light Transmission during Setting and Aging of Modern Flowable Bulk-Fill Composites.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Profiling Elastoplastic and Chemical Parameters to Assess Polymerization Quality in Flowable Bulk-Fill Composites.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Marginal Integrity of Simplified Adhesive Strategies in Primary Teeth.International dental journal · 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
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Bulk-fill composites enable timesaving and less technical-sensitive application of restorations. This study investigated and compared the marginal integrity of classical and bulk-fill composite restorations in primary and permanent molars before and after thermo-mechanical loading (TML). Two Class II cavities were prepared in each of 20 primary and 20 permanent molars. The molars were randomised in four groups for each molar type. Groups 1 and 5 were restored with a high-viscous bulk-fill composite (Tetric PowerFill), groups 2 and 6 were restored with a flowable bulk-fill composite (Tetric PowerFlow), groups 3 and 7 were restored with a high-viscous classical composite (Tetric Prime), and groups 4 and 8 were restored with a flowable classical composite (Tetric EvoFlow). In permanent molars, the flowable composites were covered with a 2-mm layer of high-viscous composite (groups 6 and 8). The restorations were subjected to TML in a custom-made chewing machine (5-50 °C, 2 min dwelling time, × 1000; 400 ,000 loading cycles, 1.7 Hz, 49 N), and quantitative marginal analysis was conducted using scanning electron microscopy. Marginal integrity of each restoration was calculated as a percentage of continuous margins before and after TML. The tested high-viscous bulk-fill restoration showed similarly high marginal integrity in primary and permanent molars as the classical restoration. The tested flowable bulk-fill restoration showed the lowest marginal integrity compared to all other restorations after TML. In contrast to flowable bulk-fill restorations, high-viscous bulk-fill restorations show similar marginal integrity as classical hybrid composite restorations after TML, in both primary and permanent molars.
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.