Trial reportBMC oral health2025
One-year clinical performance of restorations with and without a bulk-fill flowable base in endodontically treated premolars: a pilot randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBulk-fill flowable resin composites have demonstrated clinical effectiveness in restoring Class I and II cavities in vital teeth. However, their performance in endodontically treated teeth remains unclear. This randomized, controlled, and double-blind pilot clinical trial aimed to evaluate the one-year clinical performance of direct restorations in endodontically treated premolars, using either a conventional incremental technique or a technique incorporating a bulk-fill flowable composite base.
methodsNineteen patients with at least one endodontically treated maxillary premolar requiring a direct restoration were enrolled. A total of 21 premolars were restored with either a nanohybrid resin composite (VT group) or a bulk-fill flowable composite base followed by nanohybrid composite (VT-F group). Two calibrated examiners evaluated restorations at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months using modified USPHS criteria. Mann–Whitney U and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests were applied for intergroup and intragroup comparisons (α = 0.05).
resultsCompared with baseline, the VT group showed a significant increase in surface roughness at 6 and 12 months (p = 0.025). No significant differences were observed between groups in other evaluated parameters, including anatomic form, marginal discoloration, retention, marginal adaptation, color match, and secondary caries (p > 0.05). One restoration in the VT-F group failed due to fracture at the 6-month recall.
conclusionsAfter one year, the clinical performance of endodontically treated premolars restored with a bulk-fill flowable base was comparable to that of restorations placed using the conventional incremental technique.
trial registrationBrazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (RBR-107w28wf). Registered on 10/10/2022. Retrospectively registered.
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.