ArticleClinical oral investigations2023
Assessment of internal porosities for different placement techniques of bulk-fill resin-based composites: a micro-computed tomography study.
Article 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 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effect of Time Pressure on the Quality of Fillings and Arousal Levels of Dentists.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Trial
- Technique-dependent differences in internal adaptation, porosity and degree of conversion of short fibre-reinforced composite restorations in deep MOD cavities.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Micro-CT evaluation of internal adaptation in composite restorations using incremental and sonic-activated techniques.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Micro-CT Assessment of Internal and External Void Formation in Class II Restorations of Primary Molars Using Bulk-Fill Composites.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
- Push-out Bond Strength of Bulk-Fill Composites Used as Intracanal Anchorage Material.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2025Article
- The effect of contouring instruments on immediate quality and porosity of direct restorations.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Quantitative Analysis of Closed Porosity in Direct Resin Composites: A Micro-CT Study on the Influence of Material Type.International journal of dentistry · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Microshear Bond Strength and Microgap Formation of a New Self-Cure Bulk-Fill and a Light-Cure Composite Resin in Bonding to Dentin.International journal of dentistry · 2025Article
- Efficiency of bulk-fill versus conventional resin-based composite in class II restorations: A dental student perspective.The Saudi dental journal · 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
7 authors at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe aim was to compare the porosity of different bulk-fill resin-based composites (RBCs) placement techniques to the conventional incremental technique using microcomputed tomography (μ-CT). MATERIAL AND
methodsOcclusal cavities were prepared on extracted human molars, divided into five groups based on the placement technique (n = 10/group). Techniques examined were Monoblock-two-step (SureFil SDR flow + Ceram.X), Monoblock-two-step (Tetric EvoFlow Bulk-Fill + Tetric EvoCeram Bulk-Fill), Monoblock-one-step (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk-Fill), Monoblock with sonic activation (SonicFill2), and incremental technique (Filtek Z250). μ-CT scanning (SkyScan, Bruker, Belgium) assessed the number, volume of closed pores, and total porosity. Analysis of variance on ranks was used (Student-Newman-Keuls method and Mann-Whitney rank-sum test), to determine the significance of RBC viscosity and the sonication placement technique. The Spearman correlation method assessed the correlation between porosity characteristics (α = 0.05).
resultsThe SonicFill2 presented a higher number of closed pores than the other groups (p < 0.05). The overall porosity within the restoration seemed greater in this order: Filtek Z250 > SonicFill2 > Tetric EvoFlow Bulk-Fill + Tetric EvoCeram Bulk-Fill > Tetric EvoCeram Bulk-Fill > SureFil SDR Flow + Ceram.X. Sonication was associated with increased number (p = 0.005) and volume (p = 0.036) of closed pores. A strong correlation was observed between the number and volume of closed pores (R
conclusionsThe monoblock technique with sonic activation showed significantly more internal porosity than the other placement techniques. Sonication during application contributed to the higher number and volume of closed pores than the passive bulk-fill application. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Using bulk-fill materials enhances efficiency, yet void formation remains an issue, depending on viscosity and active/passive delivery of materials. Clinicians must familiarize themselves with effective placement techniques to reduce void formation and optimizing treatment outcomes.
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.