ArticleClinical oral investigations2024
In-vitro evaluation of fracture resistance of teeth restored with different high-viscosity glass ionomer restorative materials and bulk-fill composite resins.
Article 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 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.
- Influence of thickness and base material in class II restorations with nanofilled composites: finite element study.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Effect of Fiber-Reinforced Composite Placement Site on Fracture Resistance of Premolar Teeth: an in vitro Study [Letter].Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the effect of restorations made with a glass-hybrid restorative system (GHRS), a high-viscosity glass ionomer restorative material (HVGIC), a high-viscosity bulk-fill composite resin (HVB), a flowable bulk-fill composite resin (FB), and a nanohybrid composite resin (NH), which are commonly preferred in clinical applications on the fracture resistance of teeth in-vitro. MATERIALS AND
methodsOne hundred intact human premolar teeth were included in the study. The teeth were randomly divided into ten groups (n = 10). No treatment was applied to the teeth in Control group. Class II cavities were prepared on the mesial surfaces of the remaining ninety teeth in other groups. For restoration of the teeth, a GHRS, a HVGIC, a HVB, a FB, and a NH were used. Additionally, in four groups, teeth were restored using NH, GHRS, and HVGIC with open and closed-sandwich techniques. After 24 h, fracture resistance testing was performed. One-way ANOVA and Tukey HDS tests were used for statistical analysis of the data.
resultsThe fracture resistance values of Control group were statistically significantly higher than those of GHRS, HVGIC, FB, NH, HVGIC-CS, GHRS-OS, and HVGIC-OS groups(p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference observed between the fracture resistance values of Control, HVB, and GHRS-CS groups (p > 0.05).
conclusionIt can be concluded that the use of HVB and the application of GHRS with a closed-sandwich technique may have a positive effect on the fracture resistance of teeth in the restoration of wide Class II cavities. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of high-viscosity bulk-fill composite resin and the application of glass-hybrid restorative system with the closed-sandwich technique in the restoration of teeth with wide Class II cavities could increase the fracture resistance of the teeth.
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.