ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2025
Clinical evaluation of bioactive composite resin in class V lesions in high-risk caries patients: A randomized split-mouth trial.
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 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.
- Comparative clinical evaluation of direct-indirect heat tempered and direct composite restoration technique in noncarious cervical lesions: A split-mouth randomized clinical.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Bioactive Fillers in Bulk-Fill Composite Resins: A Comprehensive Review of the Effects on Polymerization Shrinkage Behavior and Mechanical Performance.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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: Recurrent caries at tooth-restoration interfaces remains a primary reason for restoration replacement. The challenge is developing biomaterials that prevent demineralization or promote remineralization. The study aimed to clinically evaluate and compare bioactive composite resin (CR), Predicta Bioactive Bulk, and nonbioactive CR in class V lesions of high-risk caries patients using the FDI criteria. Subjects and Methods: Twenty high caries risk adult patients with bilaterally symmetrical posterior buccal caries were selected. Restorations with either Predicta Bioactive composite or nonbioactive composite were undertaken and recalled for clinical evaluation at baseline (1 month), 3, 6, and 12 months using the FDI criteria. The data were analyzed using the SPSS software (Windows Version 22.0, Released 2013). Mean, standard deviation, frequency, proportions, Chi-square test, Cochran's Q test, and McNemar's Results: There were no statistically significant differences in the clinical performance of bioactive and nonbioactive composites in terms of marginal staining, fracture and retention, marginal adaptation, and recurrence of initial pathology. Conclusion: Predicta Bioactive Bulk and 3M™ Filtek™ Bulk Fill Posterior Restorative demonstrated equivalent effectiveness in the restoration of class V caries in high-risk caries patients.
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.