ReviewJournal of functional biomaterials2025
Class-I and Class-II Restorations with the Application of a Flowable Composite as an Intermediate Layer-A Narrative Review of Clinical Trials.
Review in Journal of functional biomaterials, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Short-term clinical and micromorphological comparison of injectable and paste composites in occlusal cavities.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Clinical evaluation of different bi-layer biomimetic strategies of composite resin in large class I cavities: an 18-month randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The objective of this review is to investigate the effect of an additional layer of flowable composite for cavity lining on the clinical outcome of direct posterior composite restorations. The PICO question (patient, intervention, comparison, and outcome) was stated as follows: Does the additional application of a flowable composite as a cavity liner improve the clinical outcome of Class-I and Class-II restorations? The electronic databases MEDLINE, Web of Science, LILAS, and BBO were assessed for identifying relevant clinical studies. After removal of duplicate records, 309 records could be identified and, after a screening of the title and abstract, 20 articles were selected for full-text analysis. Finally, six studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review for further investigation. Four of the included studies have a follow-up period of two years, while the other two studies had an observation period of three and seven years, respectively. No significant differences in annual failure rates were observed between restorations with and without a flowable composite liner. Consequently, the additional usage of flowable composites as a cavity liner seems to have no effect on the clinical longevity of direct composite restorations in Class-I and Class-II cavities. Therefore, the application of a flowable composite is a possible option in everyday dental clinical practice.
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.