Trial reportBMC oral health2025
Comparative evaluation of clinical performance of bulk-fill composites with incrementally layered conventional composites.
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 NCT07078110 (Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Performance of Bulk-Fill Composites With Incrementally Layered Conventional Composites), 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.
Comparative Evaluation of Clinical Performance of Bulk-Fill Composites With Incrementally Layered Conventional Composites: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Clinical Performance of Bulk-Fill Versus Incremental Composite Placement Approaches in Vital Posterior Teeth: A 24 Months Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This study aimed to compare the clinical effectiveness of bulk-fill composites with conventionally layered incremental composites in Class I cavities using modified USPHS criteria. Patients aged 15 to 50 years of either gender visiting Fatima Jinnah Dental College and Hospital OPD who fulfilled the inclusion criteria (vital first and second molar teeth with Class I cavities having a depth of 3-4 mm) were recruited in the study from July 2021 to January 2023. Fifty patients were selected based on sample size calculations. Each patient received two restorations, one from each group. Group A received incremental layering composite restorations, while Group B received bulk-fill composite restorations. Group A restorations were placed on the right side, and Group B restorations were placed on the left side. A single trained operator placed all restorations. After one year, the restorations were evaluated using modified USPHS criteria. Periapical radiographs were taken, and postoperative sensitivity was assessed using cold testing (ethyl chloride spray), with pain responses recorded using the Visual Analogue Scale. Descriptive statistics and post-stratification Chi-square tests were performed. Group A showed 100% absence of postoperative sensitivity compared to 94% in Group B. Satisfactory clinical performance was observed in 96% of Group A restorations and 92% of Group B restorations. There was no statistically significant difference in satisfactory clinical performance between the two techniques. Bulk-fill composite resin placement demonstrated comparable clinical performance to incrementally placed composite restorations after one year of follow-up in Class I permanent molar teeth restorations.Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT07078110 (registered retrospectively on 22-07-2025).
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.