ArticleFrontiers in oral health2025
Staining susceptibility and the effect of different stain removal techniques on the optical properties of injectable composite resins.
Article in Frontiers in oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Stain susceptibility of a giomer and a particulate-filled injectable composite with one-step and multi-step polishing techniques, and color recovery after brushing and repolishing.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Effects of surface treatment methods on the color stability, whiteness, and surface roughness of bleach-shade composite resins.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Assessment of bleaching procedures on the optical properties, surface roughness and microhardness of single-shade resin composites: an in-vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Highly Filled Flowable Composite Resins as Sole Restorative Materials: A Systematic Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The effects of a carbonated beverage on the optical properties and microhardness of preheated bulk-fill composite resin restorations.Frontiers in 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The injectable composite resin technique using highly filled flowable composite for anterior restorations is relatively new. This study aims to detect the staining susceptibility and the effect of polishing and bleaching agents and their combination on the stain removal and surface gloss of the injectable composite resins compared to sculptable nanofilled composite. Methods: Eighty-four disc-shaped specimens were prepared from two injectable composite resins: Beautifil Flow Plus X (BFP) and G-ænial Universal Injectable (GUI) and one sculptable nanofilled composite; Filtek™ Z350XT Universal Restorative (FUR), immersed in an instant coffee solution for 12 days. The specimens from each material were divided into four groups ( Results: All tested materials showed clinically unacceptable staining susceptibility after coffee immersion and stain removing methods (ΔE Conclusion: Injectable composites exhibited lower staining susceptibility than the sculptable nanofilled composite. No stain-removing method restored the color for all composites to the clinically acceptable threshold. In-office bleaching with Opalescence Boost 40% effectively maintained optimal surface gloss, while polishing alone or after bleaching is not recommended due to its negative impact on gloss.
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.