ArticleThe journal of adhesive dentistry2025
Marginal Quality and Wear of Bulk-Fill Composites: Differences Between Dentitions.
Article in The journal of adhesive dentistry, 2025. 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.
- Micro-CT evaluation of internal adaptation in composite restorations using incremental and sonic-activated techniques.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Article
- Universal Bulk-Fill Composites: An Investigation into the Efficiency of Rapid Curing with Reversible Addition-Fragmentation-Chain Transfer (RAFT)-Mediated Polymerisation.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the marginal quality and wear of bulk-fill composite resins (BFs) for Class-II restorations of primary and permanent molars in comparison to a conventionally layered composite resin (RC) and to compare the results of the two dentitions. MATERIALS AND
methodsEighty (40 primary and 40 permanent) extracted molars received standardized Class-II cavity preparations and were restored with either one of two flowable BFs, one of two high viscous BFs, or a composite resin (RC). Thermomechanical loading (TML; 2,500 cycles +5°C/+55°C; 100,000 cycles, 50N, 1.67Hz) followed. A quantitative marginal analysis using SEM images and a profilometric quantification of two-body wear were carried out using replicas. ANOVA, Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney U, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were used for statistical analysis (P < 0.05).
resultsFor both dentitions, a significant reduction of perfect margins was observed after TML (P < 0.02). For the primary dentition, the flowable BFs showed significantly less perfect margins than all high viscous materials (P < 0.005). For the permanent dentition, RC showed significantly fewer gaps than the flowable BFs (P < 0.04). Regarding wear, within the dentitions, no significant differences could be computed between groups with regard to the maximum height loss (P < 0.05).
conclusionAll of the investigated bulk-fill composite resins showed satisfactory in-vitro results for both tested parameters in primary and permanent teeth, with a superiority of the high-viscosity materials in terms of marginal quality.
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.