ArticleBMC oral health2025
Clinical comparison of direct and indirect class II composite restorations: a prospective 12-month follow-up 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. It is linked to trial NCT06667271 (Clinical Evaluation of Posterior Restorations Made With Direct and Indirect Composites), which is not on this map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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.
Clinical Evaluation of Posterior Restorations Made With Direct and Indirect Composites
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Comparison of universal adhesives used in different etching modes on dentin bond strength: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2026Pooled it
- Review
- Er:YAG Laser Versus Sandblasting for Build-Up Conditioning in Adhesive Cementation: A Retrospective Study of 187 Posterior Indirect Restorations.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Effect of the double-application of one-step universal adhesives on bonding strength to bur-cut enamel.BMC 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis study evaluated the clinical performance of posterior restorations made with direct and indirect composite materials.
methodsIn 74 participants, 79 class II cavities were restored using direct composite (Filtek Ultimate) and indirect composite (Crea.lign) materials. Indirect composite restorations were placed to cavity preparations when the isthmus width exceeded two-thirds of the intercuspal distance or teeth had a cuspal loss. Evaluations were conducted using modified World Dental Federation criteria during the first week and at 6 and 12 months. The data were analyzed statistically using Fisher's exact test and chi-square tests.
resultsAfter 12 months, 58 restorations were evaluated in 54 participants. None of the evaluation criteria showed significant differences between Filtek Ultimate and Crea.lign restorations (p > 0.05). At the 12-month, slight marginal discoloration was found in one Filtek Ultimate and two Crea.lign restorations (p > 0.05). Small marginal gaps were observed in two of the Crea.lign restorations. Post-operative sensitivity was detected within one week for six (13.9%) Filtek Ultimate and three (8.3%) Crea.lign restorations, with no significant difference between the two materials (p = 0.298).
conclusionAt the 12-month evaluation, indirect and direct composite resin materials showed similar clinical performance. Crea.lign indirect composite material demonstrated acceptable clinical performance in large class II cavities, both with and without cuspal loss.
trial registrationRetrospectively registered on NCT06667271. Data of registration: 30 October 2024.
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.