Trial reportClinical oral investigations2024
Two-year evaluation of a nano-hybrid and a bulk-fill resin composite: a randomized, double-blind split-mouth clinical study.
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 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, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Fracture resistance of molars with class II MOD cavities restored with bulk-fill, no-cap flowable bulk-fill, and conventional resin composite restorative systems after 6-months water storage.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- Review
- 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
- 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
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the 2-year clinical performance of a bulk-fill composite resin and a nano-hybrid-filled composite resin in 6-12-year-old children in a split-mouth design. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis randomized, split-mouth, and double-blind study was conducted on 89 patients aged 6-12 years with caries on bilateral mandibular first molars. In a split-mouth design, restorations of mandibular permanent molars were completed with nano-hybrid organically modified ceramic (ORMOCER)-based bulk-fill composite resin Admira Fusion x-tra (Voco GmbH, Cuxhaven, Germany) and nano-hybrid composite Grandio (Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany). Futurabond U single dose (Voco, Cuxhaven, Germany) was used with selective enamel etching. The clinical success of the restorations was evaluated using USPHS and FDI criteria at 6, 12, and 24-month follow-up controls.
resultsIn the 2-year follow-up, all restorations were clinically acceptable. Grandio was significantly worse than Admira Fusion x-tra in terms of surface luster and superficial change (p < 0.05). Surface staining and color match scores increased in Admira Fusion x-tra compared with Grandio significantly (p < 0.05).
conclusionsAlthough both materials showed acceptable clinical performance over 2 years, a significant difference was observed between the surface luster, surface staining, marginal adaptation, and staining of the nano-hybrid composite placed with the incremental technique and the bulk-fill ORMOCER-based composite resin. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: As an alternative to nano-hybrid composite resins, using bulk-fill restorative materials, which can be indicated in the proper case, may contribute to shortening treatment procedures and increasing patient and physician comfort, leading to clinical success.
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.