Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37402908›Full record

SynthesisEvidence-based dentistry2023

The clinical performance of bulk-fill versus the incremental layered application of direct resin composite restorations: a systematic review.

Arjita Sengupta, Olga Naka, Shamir B Mehta, Subir Banerji

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Evidence-based dentistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
34citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

34 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Clinical Performance of Bulk-Fill Versus Incremental Composite Placement Approaches in Vital Posterior Teeth: A 24 Months Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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.

Arjita SenguptaFaculty of Dentistry Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.
Olga NakaFaculty of Dentistry Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, King's College London, London, UK. naka@dent.auth.gr.ORCID 0000-0003-2234-4229
Shamir B MehtaFaculty of Dentistry Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-9674-2492
Subir BanerjiFaculty of Dentistry Oral and Craniofacial Sciences, King's College London, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo systematically review the scientific evidence comparing the clinical effectiveness of bulk-fill versus incrementally layered conventional resin composites and to evaluate if one method offers clear merits with specific clinical outcomes. MATERIALS AND

methodsUsing relevant mesh terms and pre-established eligibility criteria in PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science, a thorough scientific search was conducted with an end-date of 30.04.2023. Randomized controlled clinical trials that involved the direct comparison of Class I and Class II resin composite restorations applied using incremental layering techniques versus bulk-filled in permanent teeth with an observation period of at least six months were considered. To evaluate the bias risk of the finalized records, a revised version of the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials was implemented.

resultsOut of the 1445 records determined, 18 eligible reports were chosen for qualitative analysis. Data obtained was categorized as per, the cavity design, the intervention, the comparator(s), the methods of success/failure assessment, the outcomes, and follow-up. Two studies demonstrated an overall low-risk of bias, fourteen studies raised some concerns, and two studies exhibited high-risk.

conclusionBulk filled resin composite restorations demonstrated clinical outcomes similar to those of incrementally layered resin composite restorations within a review interval of 6 months to 10 years.

Indexed as

Dental CariesDental Restoration, PermanentComposite ResinsDentition, PermanentHumansTreatment OutcomeComposite Resins

Identifiers

PMID37402908
PMCPMC10516750

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.