Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36382215›Full record

ArticleActa stomatologica Croatica2022

12-months Clinical Evaluation of Fiber Reinforced Bulk Fill Resin Composite versus Incremental Packing of Nanohybrid Resin Composite in Restoration of Deep Proximal Lesions of Permanent Molars: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Mennatallah N Salem, Olfat E Hassanein, Dina W ElKassas, Omar O Shaalan

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Acta stomatologica Croatica, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

8 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Mennatallah N SalemPhD candidate, Conservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0070-2099
Olfat E HassaneinConservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Dina W ElKassasConservative Dentistry Department, Operative Division, Faculty of Oral and Dental Medicine, Misr International University, Cairo, Egypt.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0914-7167
Omar O ShaalanConservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5210-8863
Cairo University · EGMisr International University · EG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: The present clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the clinical performance of the biomimetic, bilayered structure utilizing a fiber reinforced bulk fill resin composite with a nanohybrid capping layer, compared to incremental packing of nanohybrid resin composite, in deep proximal cavities in permanent molars. Material and methods: A total of 36 deep proximal cavities in vital molars were restored either with a bilayered structure of fiber reinforced composite resin as a dentine substitute and a capping layer of nanohybrid composite resin (n=18) or conventional, nanohybrid composite resin incrementation (n=18). The restorations were assessed over a period of 12 months using the modified USPHS criteria. The criteria evaluated were: fracture and retention, marginal integrity, marginal discoloration, anatomic form, proximal contact, surface texture, radiographic evaluation, postoperative sensitivity and secondary caries. Results: There was no statistically or clinically significant difference between fiber-reinforced resin composite and conventional incremental resin composite. There was no risk for failure regarding all the evaluated modified USPHS criteria for both materials after 12 months (RR= 1(95% CI 0.0209 to 47.8503; P =1.0000)). Conclusion: The biomimetic approach utilizing a fiber reinforced resin composite dentine substitute showed a comparable clinical performance to nanohybrid resin composite incrementation. Bulk fill fiber reinforced resin composite is an efficient alternative in restoration of deep proximal cavities in posterior teeth. Further long-term studies are necessary to confirm these results.

Indexed as

Author Keywords: fiber reinforced compositesBiomimetic Materialsbiomimetic restorationBiomimetic Restorationbulk fill resin compositeBulk Fill Resin CompositeComposite Resinsdentine substituteDentine SubstituteEverXEverX PosteriorMeSH Terms: Dental Restoration Wearposterior

Identifiers

PMID36382215
PMCPMC9635496
OpenAlexW4297996303

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.