Trial reportClinical oral investigations2024
Two-year clinical performance of dual- and light-cure bulk-fill resin composites in Class ӀӀ restorations: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Clinical performance of an innovative self-cure bulk-fill composite compared to dual-cure and light-cure bulk-fill composite in posterior restorations: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Wear performance of different bulk-fill class II resin composite restorations: 3-year clinical evaluation.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Clinical performance of single shade universal resin composites: a randomized controlled one year follow-up study.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Effect of high irradiance and short exposure curing time on the fracture toughness of bulk-fill resin-based composite: an in vitro study.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2026Article
- Surface roughness and wear resistance of ormocer- versus methacrylate-based single-shade resin composites after simulated tooth brushing.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Effect of immersion in different media on the color stability, surface roughness, and microhardness of flowable nanohybrid resin composites.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- A Narrative Review of the Material Properties, Clinical Efficacy, and Developmental Prospects of Bulk-Fill Resin-Based Composites.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2026Review
- Effect of fiber reinforcement on the fracture resistance of bulk-fill composite restorations in endodontically treated premolars: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Influence of composite resin type and curing method on the fracture resistance of class II restorations: An in vitro comparison.Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects · 2025Article
- Review
- Optimisation of services to prevent dental caries for school-aged children in China: a discrete choice experiment.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Five-year survival of class II restorations with and without base bulk-fill composite: a retrospective cohort study.Clinical oral investigations · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the clinical performance of dual- and light-cure bulk-fill resin composites (BFRCs) in Class ӀӀ restorations after 2 years. MATERIALS AND
methodsA double-blinded, prospective, randomized clinical trial (RCT) was conducted following the CONSORT (Consolidated Standard of Reporting Trials) guidelines. Forty patients were enrolled in the study. Each patient received three compound Class ӀӀ restorations. One dual-cure (Fill-Up; Coltene Waledent AG) and two light-cure (QuiXfil; Dentsply, and Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill; Ivoclar Vivadent) BFRCs were used for 120 Class ӀӀ restorations. A universal adhesive (ONE COAT 7 UNIVERSAL; Coltene Waledent AG) was used with all restorations. Restorations were clinically evaluated after 1 week (baseline), 6 months, 12 months, 18 months, and finally after 24 months using the FDI World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria. The Kruskal-Wallis test was used for comparison between BFRCs groups at baseline and at each recall period, and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used for comparing different follow-up times of each BFRC to baseline. The level of significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsAll BFRCs restorations showed only minor changes and revealed no statistically significant differences between their clinical performance for all evaluated parameters at all recall periods; also, there was no statistically significant difference between all recall periods and baseline for all evaluated parameters.
conclusionThe two-year clinical performance of dual-cure BFRC was comparable to light-cure BFRCs in Class ӀӀ restorations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Dual- and light-cure BFRCs showed excellent clinical performance in Class ӀӀ restorations after a 2-year clinical follow-up.
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.