Trial reportBMC oral health2025
Clinical evaluation of direct and indirect restorations in class I cavities: a 10-year follow-up study.
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. It is linked to trial NCT07081529 (Clinical Evaluation of Direct and Indirect Restorations in Class I Cavities), which is not on this 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.
Clinical Evaluation of Direct and Indirect Restorations in Class I Cavities: A 10-Year Follow-up Study
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Long-Term Clinical Performance of Posterior Composite Restorations After Nearly Three Decades: A Clinical Follow-Up Study.Dentistry journal · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the clinic, it is crucial to be aware of the long-term clinical efficacy of restoration techniques, such as direct and indirect, when restoring molar teeth. This randomized controlled trial aimed to evaluate the clinical performance of direct and indirect restorations in Class I cavities in molar teeth. Randomization was achieved by flipping a coin to determine which tooth would receive the direct restoration, with the other tooth receiving an indirect restoration.
methodsThe study was comprised of 27 patients, with an average age of 34.16 (range, 24-54) years. A total of 54 class I restorations were made, 27 of which were direct restorations and 27 were indirect restorations. One direct and one indirect Class I restoration was performed on each patient. A microhybrid universal composite (Aelite All-Purpose Body, Bisco) was used for direct restorations, and a reinforced microfill composite system (Tescera Indirect Composite System Body, Bisco) was used for indirect restorations. The restorations were assessed at baseline and at 1, 2, and 10-year recalls using the modified USPHS criteria. The results were analyzed statistically using the Friedman test, Mann-Whitney U test, and Dunn's post hoc test.
resultsAfter 10 years, the success rate was 85.2% for direct restorations (p = 0.007) and 96.3% for indirect restorations (p = 0.39). Four direct restorations failed because of caries (p = 0.007), and one indirect restoration failed due to the need for crown restoration (p = 0.39). The failure rate of direct restorations was higher than that of indirect restorations (p = 0.043). Except for caries, for any evaluation criterion, no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) was detected between indirect and direct restorations among all evaluation periods.
conclusionsBoth direct and indirect restorations have demonstrated satisfactory success rates after 10 years. The primary cause of restoration failure in direct restorations was caries. Although indirect restoration options give excellent results for Class I cavities at the end of 10 years, direct restorations may be a suitable alternative for Class I cavities due to their several advantages. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: At the end of 10 years, it can be said that both direct and indirect restorations may be preferred in Class I cavities.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT07081529. Registered on July 22, 2025. 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.