Trial reportScientific reports2024
24 Months clinical prospective of proximal restorations with repeated preheating bulk fill composite up to ten cycles: randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
This study aimed to clinically evaluate the performance of non-preheated bulk fill resin composite in class II cavities versus one, five and ten-time preheating cycles at 68 °C. Eighty-four recruited participants were randomly allocated into four groups (21 patients per group). One posterior Bulk-fill proximal restoration was performed for each participant according to the preheating cycles where in group I; teeth were restored with non-heated resin composite, group II: One preheating cycle of composite syringe was performed prior restoration, and group III: five preheating cycles while for group IV: Ten preheating cycles were performed. These restorations were clinically evaluated at 6, 12, 18 and 24 months. Statistical analysis was performed using one way ANOVA, with set p-value < 0.05. The results revealed that there was perfect agreement between both observers and observations WK (95% CI) [0.908 (0.780:1.000)] and [0.940 (0.824:1.000)], respectively. All restorations showed acceptable clinical performance with alpha and bravo scores. No replacement was required for any restoration. No statistically significant differences were detected between the control and intervention groups across all parameters during the various evaluation stages. It could be concluded that the clinical performance of ten cycles of repeated preheated bulk fill resin composite was equivalent to that of non-preheating resin composites after 24 months follow-up period, with great improvement in manipulation. Preheating of resin composite could be performed up to ten cycles prior to placement without any clinical adverse consequences on the performance of the restoration.
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.