Trial reportJournal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.]2025
Three-Year Practice-Based Clinical Trial on the Performance of a Self-Adhesive Resin-Based Bulk-Fill Restorative.
Trial report in Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.], 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.
- From Classical Enamel/Dentin Bonding to Self-Adhesive Composites: A Narrative Review of Current Clinical Aspects.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Multiscale Design of Dental Restorative Materials: Mechanistic Foundations, Technological Innovations, and Clinical Translation.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2025Review
- Effect of wavelength and radiant emittance on light transmittance and temperature increase in dental resin-based composites.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 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
Abstract
objectiveThe prospective clinical study followed up on self-adhesive resin-based bulk-fill restorations. MATERIALS AND
methodsSeven general dental practitioners from a practice-based research network filled 60 cavities (20 Class I, 19 Class II, 21 Class V) in permanent vital teeth of 41 subjects with a self-adhesive, dual-curing composite hybrid (Surefil one). Modified USPHS criteria were evaluated at baseline and annually. Replacement or repair of the restoration was defined as failure. Data were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method and non-parametrically (p < 0.05).
resultsAfter 3 years (1118 ± 39 days), all 29 recalled teeth were rated as vital with no hypersensitivity. One tooth showed signs of cracking. One Class I and one Class II restoration failed due to a combined marginal gap and chipping. Two restorations showed a color mismatch. The remaining restorations were found to be in clinically acceptable condition and all Class II restorations in proximal contact maintained proper contact. With one restoration failure reported after 1 year, the total of three failures resulted in an annual failure rate of 3.94%.
conclusionsThe self-adhesive composite hybrid placed during daily routine showed acceptable results out to 3 years in load-bearing Classes I and II as well as non-retentive Class V cavities. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Three-year data confirmed the suitability of the novel self-adhesive restorative material for stress-bearing posterior restorations.
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.