ArticleClinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry2022
Comparative Evaluation of Bulk-Fill Composite Resins: Knoop Microhardness, Diametral Tensile Strength and Degree of Conversion.
Article in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Comparative evaluation of clinical performance of bulk-fill composites with incrementally layered conventional composites.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Assessment of compressive and flexural properties of three contemporary bulk fill resin composites.Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL · 2025Article
- Surface microhardness of three Bulk Fill resin composites previously exposed to five carbonated beverages at different times: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Influence of different finishing, aging with coffee, and repolishing protocols on the properties of nanoparticle composite resins.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Bulk-fill composite resins were developed to reduce time and facilitate the restorative procedure. However, considering their recent introduction on the market and the new formulations, their performance still requires evaluation. This study aimed to evaluate Knoop microhardness (KHN), diametral tensile strength (DTS) and degree of conversion (DC) of three Bulk-Fill composite resins and a conventional one. Materials and Methods: Sixty samples (n = 15; 8 mm ø x 4 mm height) were confectioned using a mold. Filtek Bulk-Fill (FBF), Tetric N-Ceram Bulk-Fill (TNC) and SonicFill 2 (SF2) were placed in 4 mm increments, and Filtek Z350 (FZ350) was placed in 2 mm increments. The KHN of top and bottom surfaces were tested using Knoop Hardness tester at 10 gf/10s. The DTS was tested under compressive load at 1.0 mm/min. The DC was measured by Fourier Transform Infrared (FTIR) spectroscopy. Differences in DTS and DC were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey post hoc test. For KHN, Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon tests were performed at α = 0.05. Results: Top surfaces of all composite resins had higher KHN than bottom surfaces. At top and bottom surfaces, FZ350 showed higher KHN than TNC and SF2. The highest DTS was obtained by FBF, followed by FZ350 and SF2. The highest DC was obtained by SF2, the lowest one was obtained by FBF. Conclusion: From Bulk-Fill composite resins, FBF presented the best KHN and DTS results. The SF2 showed the best DC. Further studies are required to ensure whether these differences can negatively influence the behavior of in vivo restorations.
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.