ArticleOdontology2025
Wear and roughness analysis of two highly filled flowable composites.
Article in Odontology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of toothbrushing mode and brushing load on the wear of anterior tooth-shaped restorative composites.Odontology · 2026Article
- Article
- Three-Dimensional Analysis of Morphological Adaptation and Wear in Restorations Performed Using the Stamp Technique with Different Viscosity Composite Resins.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Artificial accelerated aging and red wine staining on color stability in dental composites.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Wear resistance, microhardness and compressive strength of high filled flowable composite resins.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Color and surface properties of conventional, injectable, and 3D-printed resin composites for anterior restorations: influence of a surface sealant.Odontology · 2026Article
- Color stability, surface roughness, and surface morphology of universal composites.Odontology · 2026Article
- Effect of erosive solutions and thermal cycling on the surface properties of universal injectable and regular consistency resin composites.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Highly Filled Flowable Composite Resins as Sole Restorative Materials: A Systematic Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Color stability of frequently used aesthetic restorative materials following in vitro exposure to chlorhexidine- and octenidine-based mouthrinses.BMC oral health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This in vitro study aimed to evaluate surface roughness and wear of highly filled flowables and traditional packable composites. Additionally, the effect of polymerization time on these parameters was evaluated. Two flowable higly filled composites (CMf-Clearfil Majesty ES flow-low viscosity, Kuraray and GUf-Gaenial Universal Injectable, GC) and two packable composites (CM-Clearfil Majesty ES-2, Kuraray and GU-Gaenial A'CHORD, GC) were used to create 160 specimens (n = 40;8 × 6 × 4mm). For each tested material, two subgroups were considered according to the polymerization time (n = 20): 10 s or 80 s. After setting, the specimens were subjected to chewing simulations (240.000 cycles, 20N), and wear was measured by the laser integrated in the chewing simulator. The surface roughness was measured using a rugosimeter, before and after chewing cycles. Two representative specimens per group were observed under scanning electron microscope (SEM). Data were collected and statistically analyzed (p < 0.05). Wear analysis highlighted statistically significant differences between the groups: CMf10-CMf80 (p = 0.000), CMf10-CM10 (p = 0.019), CMf10-GUf10 (p = 0.002), CM10-CM80 (p = 0.000), CM80-GUf80 (p = 0.02), GUf10-GUf80 (p = 0.000), GUf10-GU10 (p = 0.043) and GU10-GU80 (p = 0.013). Statistically significant differences in surface roughness were highlighted between the groups: CMf10-CMf80 (p = 0.038), CMf80-CM80 (p = 0.019), CMf80-GU80 (p = 0.010), CM80-GUf80 (p = 0.34) and GUf80-GU80 (p = 0.003). Surface roughness and wear of highly filled flowable composites were comparable to that of traditional paste composites. Furthermore, a longer curing time leads to an improvement in the mechanical properties of the composites. Highly filled flowables can be a valid alternative to paste composites in occlusal areas due to its similar surface roughness and wear values, especially when overcured.
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.