Trial reportClinical oral investigations2023
Effects of lesion size on the 30-month clinical performance of restorations with bulk fill and a regular nanofilled resin composite in noncarious cervical lesions.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical performance of a bulk-fill versus a nanofilled resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions with different extensions: a 6-years randomized, parallel, double-blind clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Evaluation of non-carious cervical restorations with different cavity configurations: a microscopy and OCT analysis.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2026Article
- Review
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
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this double-blind, randomized trial was to evaluate the influence of the occlusogingival distance (OGD) in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs) on the clinical performance of a regular bulk-fill resin composite and a regular nanofilled resin composite. MATERIALS AND
methodsOne hundred and forty NCCLs in 77 participants were randomly divided into four groups (n = 35), according to OGD (1.5 mm ± 10% or 3 mm ± 10%) and resin composites (Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior [B] or Filtek Z350 XT [C]), namely: 1.5 mm-B, 1.5 mm-C, 3 mm-B, and 3 mm-C. The restorations were bonded using a two-step self-etch adhesive (Clearfil SE Bond), applied following the manufacturer's instructions. Restorations were polished 1 week after placement. Two experienced and calibrated examiners evaluated the restorations using modified US Public Health Service criteria at baseline (7 days) and after 6, 12, 18, 24, and 30 months. Statistical analyses were carried out using Kruskal-Wallis, Friedman's repeated measures analysis of variance, and the Wilcoxon signed rank test (α = 0.05).
resultsAfter 30 months, the recall rate was 94.2%. Eight restorations were lost (3 for 1.5 mm-C, 2 for 1.5 mm-B, 1 for 3 mm-C, and 2 for 3 mm-B). All groups resulted in a significantly worse marginal discoloration and surface texture at 30 months in comparison with the baseline (1 week). No significant difference was found for the other parameters.
conclusionThe restorations performed with both resin composites produced clinically acceptable restorations. The OGD of NCCLs did not influence the clinical performance of restorations. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The OGD of NCCLs did not have a significant effect on the clinical performance of a regular bulk-fill and nanofilled restorations. Both materials showed a very good performance on 30-month evaluation.
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.