ArticleScientific reports2025
Interfacial gap formation of class II composite restorations with proximal box elevation using bulk-fill materials: a micro-CT study.
Article in Scientific reports, 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.
- Optimizing Dental Resin-Based Composite Polymerization with Distance and Exposure Variables: Preliminary Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Micro-CT evaluation of internal adaptation in composite restorations using incremental and sonic-activated techniques.Bioinformation · 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To evaluate the effect of proximal box elevation (PBE) using different bulk-fill resin composites on interfacial gap formation of Class II direct restorations at the cervical region using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). Standardized two separate box-shaped Class II cavities were prepared on both mesial and distal surfaces of 25 sound human lower molars. Cavities were divided into five groups (n = 10) based on different bulk-fill composites used for PBE: (1) Group SB: sonic-activated bulk-fill, (2) Group EB: low-viscosity bulk-fill, (3) Group VB: thermo-viscous bulk-fill, (4) Group AB: bioactive dual-cure bulk-fill, and (5) Group FZ: no PBE (control)-conventional resin composite. A dual-cure universal adhesive was applied in self-etch mode. In PBE groups, a 3 mm bulk-fill layer was applied before layering conventional composite, while no PBE group was restored using conventional composite. Specimens underwent thermocycling (10,000 cycles, 5-55 °C). Micro-CT analysis measured interfacial gap formation based on radiolucent areas at the gingival floor of tooth-restoration interface. Data were analyzed using Welch ANOVA and Games-Howell post hoc tests (p < 0.05). Groups SB and VB showed significantly higher gap formation than Groups EB and AB, as well as Group FZ(control/no box elevation) (p < 0.05). No significant differences in gap formation were found between Groups EB, AB, and FZ (p > 0.05). PBE with low-viscosity and bioactive dual-cure bulk-fill composites effectively minimized interfacial gaps at the cervical region, suggesting their suitability for deep Class II restorations. PBE using low-viscosity bulk-fill composite resin and bioactive dual-cure bulk-fill composite resin could be preferred due to superior cavity adaptation in the cervical region compared to no proximal elevation.
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.