ArticleBMC oral health2025
Performance of RAFT-based and conventional bulk-fill composites cured with conventional and high irradiance photocuring: a comparative study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Polymerization Kinetics of Conventional vs. Fiber-Reinforced Composites Using Rapid High-Intensity Photo-Activation.Polymers · 2026Article
- A Narrative Review of the Material Properties, Clinical Efficacy, and Developmental Prospects of Bulk-Fill Resin-Based Composites.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2026Review
- New Universal Bulk-Fill Composites with Translucency Shift: Impact of Rapid Curing and Ageing on Polymerisation and Mechanical Properties.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Correction: Performance of RAFT-based and conventional bulk-fill composites cured with conventional and high irradiance photocuring: a comparative study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundUnderstanding the impact of advanced photocuring and composite formulations for clinical outcomes and restoration durability. This study evaluated the degree of conversion (DC), polymerization shrinkage strain, and flexural properties (Flexural strength and modulus) of conventional and RAFT-based bulk-fill resin composites cured with conventional and high-irradiance ultra-fast photocuring.
methodsA total of 80 specimens of a RAFT-based bulk-fill resin composite (Tetric PowerFill, TP, Ivoclar Vivadent AG Bendererstrasse 2 9494 Schann/Liechtenstein) and a conventional bulk-fill composite (Tetric N-Ceram, TN, Ivoclar Vivadent AG 9494 Schaan/Liechtenstein) were cured using two protocols: high irradiance ultra-fast mode (2700 mW/cm
resultsThe DC for TP showed no significant differences between curing modes, with values of 57.82% in fast mode and 55.3% in conventional mode. Similarly, its mechanical properties remained relatively consistent, with σf measuring 121.66 MPa in fast mode and 137.5 MPa in conventional mode, while the Ef was 6078.50 MPa and 6167.26 MPa, respectively. In contrast, TN exhibited a lower DC in fast curing (50.27%) compared to conventional curing (61.5%). However, its mechanical properties remained nearly unchanged, with σf recorded at 135.34 MPa in fast mode and 137.26 MPa in conventional mode, and Ef at 6356.54 MPa and 6857.2 MPa, respectively. Moreover, TP showed greater resistance to mechanical property degradation after thermal aging compared to TN.
conclusionsThe RAFT-based bulk-fill composite performed comparably to the conventional composite in both curing modes while demonstrating greater durability. However, fast curing of the conventional bulk-fill composite resulted in unacceptable properties, underscoring the importance of selecting appropriate materials and curing protocols to ensure long-lasting 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.