ArticleClinical oral investigations2025
Two different short fiber-reinforced resin composites for extensive MOD cavities in premolars and molars.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Post-and-Core Buildup Techniques with Short Fiber-Reinforced Composite and Polyethylene Fiber: In Vitro Evaluation of the Fracture Load and Mode of Failure.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Technique-dependent differences in internal adaptation, porosity and degree of conversion of short fibre-reinforced composite restorations in deep MOD cavities.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Short fiber-reinforced composite versus fiber posts in endodontically treated premolars with MOD cavities: effect of intracanal extension depth.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Assessment of fracture resistance in endodontically treated premolars restored using various bulk-fill composites.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Biomechanical behavior of fiber-reinforced and bulk-fill composites in extensive class II restorations: a three-dimensional finite element analysis.Biomaterial 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo assess the influence of (1) incorporating micro- and millimeter-scale short fiber-reinforced composite (SFC) on the fracture behavior of large direct restorations made in premolars (P) and molars (M); (2) tooth size on the fracture resistance and their correlation. MATERIALS AND
methodsWide MOD cavities with missing lingual walls were prepared in premolars and molars. Four groups were designed (n = 15/group). Teeth in PFC group were restored with particulate filler resin composite (Gaenial Universal Injectable) without fiber reinforcement. Teeth in bilayered group were made of micrometer-scale SFC-core (everX Flow) veneered with a resin composite layer 1 mm in thickness. Monolithic SFC restorations were made either with plain SFC (everX Flow) or with plain hybrid SFC. The hybrid SFC was composed of handmade mixture of micro- and millimeter-scale SFCs (everX Flow and everX Posterior). Specimens were stored in water for 12 months before quasi-static loading. Fractures were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy. Data were statistically analyzed with two-way ANOVA (p = 0.05), followed by the Tukey HSD test. Additionally, Pearson correlation analyses (p = 0.001) were conducted.
resultsRestorations in premolars exhibited statistically significant lower fracture resistance than those in molars, except for the plain SFC group (p < 0.05;r = 0.0114) (PFC P 481 ± 159 N; PFC M 1221 ± 435 N; Bilayered P 727 ± 387 N; Bilayerd M 1954 ± 517 N; SFC P 1735 ± 533 N; SFC M 1847 ± 551 N; SFC-hybrid P 1485 ± 339 N; SFC-hybrid M 2280 ± 375 N). In both, premolars and molars, the application of SFC as core or plain restorative material demonstrated superior fracture endurance compared to PFC restorations. Hybrid SFC in molars displayed significantly higher fracture resistance (p < 0.05) compared to the other groups. Pearson correlation indicated statistically significant positive correlation in favor of molars (p < 0.001;r = 0.490) (PFC r = 0.712, Bilayered r = 0.815, SFC-hybrid r = 0.767), except for the plain SFC group (r = 0.114).
conclusionsThe volume and consistency of SFC significantly impact the fracture endurance and fracture mode of direct composite restorations. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Tooth and short fiber reinforced composite (SFC) type are factors that should be taken into account when planning the SFC restoration. Molars could be restored with any type of SFC, however gaining a high volume of plain flowable or preferably hybrid SFC in premolars is highly important.
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.