ArticleBMC oral health2022
In vitro attrition wear resistance of four types of paste-like bulk-fill composite resins.
Article in BMC oral health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Three-Dimensional Analysis of Morphological Adaptation and Wear in Restorations Performed Using the Stamp Technique with Different Viscosity Composite Resins.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Representing dental restoration materials in the oral health and disease ontology.Journal of biomedical semantics · 2026Article
- Effect of erosive solutions and thermal cycling on the surface properties of universal injectable and regular consistency resin composites.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- The Effect of Gravity on Marginal Integrity of Different Flowable Bulk-Fill Resin Composites.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2024Article
- An In Vitro Study regarding the Wear of Composite Materials Following the Use of Dental Bleaching Protocols.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Article
- Article
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
backgroundRecently, the application of bulk-fill composite resins has increased significantly. Attrition wear and the consequently increased surface roughness of composite resins are among the causes of restoration failure in the posterior teeth. This study aimed to compare the attrition wear and surface roughness of four types of bulk-fill composite resins compared to a conventional composite resin.
methodsEverX-Posterior, X-tra fil, SonicFill 2, and Filtek Bulk-Fill composites (bulk-fill) and Z250 composite (conventional resin composite) were evaluated. Thirty cylindrical specimens (n = 6) were weighed and monitored for 24 h until their weight was stabilized. The primary surface roughness of the specimens was measured by a profilometer. The specimens were then subjected to attrition wear in a chewing simulator. Next, the specimens were weighed, and the surface roughness was measured again. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post-hoc test at P < 0.05 significance level.
resultsAccording to one-way ANOVA, the difference in weight loss was significant among the groups (P = 0.004) but the difference in surface roughness of the groups was not significant after the attrition wear (P > 0.05). Tukey's post-hoc test showed that the weight loss of bulk-fill composites was not significantly different from that of Z250 conventional composite after the attrition wear (P > 0.05).
conclusionWithin the limitations of this study, it appears that the tested bulk-fill composite resins are comparable to the conventional composite regarding their attrition wear, increased surface roughness, and weight loss.
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.