ArticleMaterials (Basel, Switzerland)2024
Comparison of Flexural Strength and Wear of Injectable, Flowable and Paste Composite Resins.
Article in Materials (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06894186 (Comparison of the Functional Properties of Two Injectable Materials in Posterior Teeth), which is not on this map. Cited by 15 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.
Comparison of the Functional Properties of Two Injectable Materials in Posterior Teeth: Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Short-term clinical and micromorphological comparison of injectable and paste composites in occlusal cavities.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Effect of deep margin elevation with different injectable materials on performance of CAD/CAM-Fabricated nanoceramic-resin onlays: 3-year randomized clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Mechanical performance and color stability of 3D-printed ceramic-filled resin following various bleaching regimens: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Study on a Novel Dental Composite Resin with Fluorinated Polyurethane Monomer and Modified Polyether Ether Ketone Fillers.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Polymerization shrinkage and stress of highly filled flowable resin composites used to perform definitive restorations.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Wear resistance, microhardness and compressive strength of high filled flowable composite resins.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- One-Year Clinical Performance of Injectable and Paste-Type Composite Resins in Non-Carious Cervical Lesions Prepared with Er,Cr:YSGG Laser and Acid Etching: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Mechanical Properties, Color Stability, and Surface Roughness of Gingiva-Shaded Composites.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Digitally Driven Smile Rehabilitation: A Fully Guided Workflow Using Dual-Layer Composite Injection Molding.Clinical case reports · 2025Article
- 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
- Article
- Comparison of the 2-year clinical performances of class II restorations using different restorative materials.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Staining susceptibility and the effect of different stain removal techniques on the optical properties of injectable composite resins.Frontiers in oral health · 2025Article
- Visibility of Recurrent Caries Through Universal Shade Resin Composite Restorations.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
(1) Objectives: This study investigated and compared the wear and flexural strength of two highly filled (injectable), one flowable and one paste composite. (2) Methods: Two highly filled flowable composites (G-aenial Universal Injectable and Beautifil Plus F00), a paste composite (Empress Direct) and a conventional flowable (Tetric EvoFlow) were tested. A two-body wear test was carried out using 10 disc-shaped samples from each group, which were subjected to 200,000 wear machine cycles to simulate wear, followed by Scanning Electron Microscope analysis. Flexural strength was tested using a three-point bend test using 15 beam samples for each of the four groups. Values were statistically compared using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for flexural strength and a Kruskal-Wallis test for wear. (3) Results: The median volume loss for G-aenial Universal Injectable and Beautifil Plus F00 was statistically lower than that of both Empress Direct and Tetric EvoFlow. For flexural strength the two highly filled flowable composites both exhibited statistically higher mean flexural strength values compared to Empress Direct (
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.