Trial reportBrazilian dental journal
One-year clinical evaluation of class II bulk-fill restorations in primary molars: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Brazilian dental journal. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Performance and Survival of Bulk-Fill Resin Composite Posterior Restorations in Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Self-adhesive flowable resin composite for occluso-proximal restorations in primary teeth: restorative time and fracture resistance analysis.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2026Article
- Clinical Performance of Bulk-Fill Versus Incremental Composite Restorations in Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review of In Vivo Evidence.Dentistry journal · 2025Review
- Influence of Different Application Modes of a Universal Adhesive System on the Bond Strength of Bulk-Fill Composite Resin to Enamel and Dentin in Primary Teeth.Clinical and experimental dental research · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This double-blind, randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the clinical performance and clinical time to restore occluso-proximal cavities in primary molars withbulk-fillresin and conventional resin. A total of 140 class II restorations in primary molars of 65 participants (mean age of 6.7 + 1.5) were placed in two random groups:bulk-filland conventional resin. The restorations were evaluated using FDI criteria at the baseline, 6-month, and one year by a single calibrated examiner, and the clinical restorative time was measured with a digital timer. The success and survival of the restorations were evaluated with Kaplan-Meier graphs. The log-rank test compared the curves. Differences in restorative clinical time were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test. The level of significance was 5%. After one year, 115 restorations were evaluated. The success probability was 88.7% for Filtek Z350 XT and 85.9% for FiltekTM Bulk-fill, and for the survival probability, Filtek Z350 XT presented 90%, and FiltekTM Bulk-fill presented 93.7%. No significant difference was found between the success and survival curves (p=0.62), (p=0.51). The main reason for failure was marginal adaptation.Bulk-fillresin required 30% less time than the conventional resin (p<0.001).Bulk-fillresin presented similar clinical performance to the conventional resin and required less restorative clinical time. It is an option to restore class II lesions of primary 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.