ArticleCureus2025
Comparison of Water Sorption and Solubility of Conventional and Bulk-Fill Composites at Different Depths Over Two Time Intervals.
Article in Cureus, 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.
- Mechanical Properties of Composite Core Build-Up Materials: A Comparative Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Evaluation of physicomechanical and optical properties of bioactive glass (BAG)-filled resin composites: anBiomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2026Article
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
BACKGROUND AND
aimBulk-fill composites are a class of restorative materials introduced to speed up the restoration process in the posterior area. This study aimed to compare the water sorption and solubility of a bulk-fill resin composite with its conventional counterpart at various depths after one week and one month of water storage.
methodsFive cylindrical specimens (15 × 8 mm) of each composite resin, Tetric N Ceram Bulk fill and Tetric N Ceram (Schaan, Liechtenstein: Ivoclar Vivadent), were prepared using a metal split mold. The conventional composite was placed incrementally in 2 mm layers, while the bulk-fill composite was applied in a single layer. Specimens were cured and polished, then cut into disc-shaped samples (1 mm thickness and 15 mm diameter) (n=40, five disks per depth for each composite). Water sorption and solubility were assessed after one week and one month of immersion in distilled water at 37±1 °C. Statistical analysis was performed using repeated measures analysis of variance and t-test (p≤0.05).
resultsThe bulk-fill composite exhibited significantly higher water sorption and solubility than the conventional composite at all depths measured. Water sorption and solubility increased with depth and were significantly greater after one month compared to one week.
conclusionThe bulk-fill composite demonstrated higher water sorption and solubility compared to the conventional composite, with significant variations observed at different depths over time. A conventional composite may work better in terms of water sorption and solubility, and must be considered in extensive 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.