Trial reportClinical oral investigations2025
Clinical performance of short fiber-reinforced and indirect resin composites in class I and class II restorations: A three-year randomized clinical trial.
Trial report 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 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.
- Clinical performance of glass hybrid and short fiber-reinforced composite restorations in MIH-affected molars: A 60-month split-mouth randomized controlled trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Comparison of marginal adaptation and fracture resistance of contemporary composite resins in molars with extensive MOD cavities.BMC oral health · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis prospective randomized clinical trial was designed to evaluate and compare the three-year clinical performance of short fiber-reinforced composite (SFRC) and indirect laboratory (lab) composite with that of a microhybrid resin composite placed in Class I and Class II cavities, with marginal adaptation defined as the primary outcome. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty-three participants, each exhibiting 3 posterior carious teeth (Class I or II, ICDAS 4 or 5) under stable occlusion, were enrolled in this study. A total of 99 restorations (33 for each material) were placed as follows: SFRC (everX Posterior), indirect lab composite (SR Nexco), and microhybrid resin composite (G-aenial Posterior). Clinical assessments were conducted at baseline (1 week), 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years by two blinded examiners utilizing FDI criteria, with marginal adaptation designated as the primary outcome, whereas other FDI criteria were assessed as secondary outcomes. Intragroup differences across follow-ups were assessed using Friedman and Wilcoxon post-hoc tests, while intergroup comparisons were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. The significance level was set at α = 0.05.
resultsTwenty-eight patients with a total of 84 restorations were evaluated at the end of the 3-years with 84.45% recall rates. The outcomes revealed no statistically significant differences among SFRC, indirect lab composite, and microhybrid resin composite restorations for the assessed criteria (p > 0.05). The clinical success rates for SFRC (everX Posterior), indirect lab composite (SR Nexco), and microhybrid resin composite (G-aenial Posterior) were 100%, 100%, and 96.43%, respectively.
conclusionAfter a three-year follow-up period, both SFRC and indirect lab composite demonstrated acceptable clinical performance, comparable to that of microhybrid resin composite, as evaluated by the FDI criteria. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Although the tested resin composite materials revealed similar clinical behavior in posterior teeth, the prolonged treatment time and higher cost of indirect lab composite favor the direct approach.
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.