ArticleBMC oral health2025
Effect of fiber reinforcement on the fracture resistance of bulk-fill composite restorations in endodontically treated premolars: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis in vitro study aimed to evaluate the fracture resistance of endodontically treated premolars restored with different bulk-fill composites with and without polyethylene fiber reinforcement.
methodsA total of 144 extracted premolars were prepared with standardized mesococclusodistal cavities and allocated to 12 groups (n = 12). Root canal treatment was performed in all but the intact control group. Restorations were carried out via a nanohybrid composite (Filtek Z250) or one of four bulk-fill composites (SDR, SonicFill 2, Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior), each with or without polyethylene fiber reinforcement. After 24 h of water storage at 37 °C, the samples were loaded axially with a steel sphere until fracture. Fracture resistance values (mean ± standard deviation, N) were recorded, and the data were analyzed via one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test (α = 0.05).
resultsIntact teeth presented the highest fracture resistance (1278.82 ± 124.19 N), whereas unrestored teeth presented the lowest fracture resistance (255.88 ± 59.17 N). Among the restored groups, Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior (996.77 ± 55.90 N) provided the greatest resistance, approaching intact values. Fiber reinforcement did not consistently increase fracture resistance and significantly reduced it in the Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior group (p < 0.05).
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this in vitro study, high-viscosity bulk-fill composites, particularly Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior, effectively restored the fracture resistance of premolars to levels approaching intact teeth. The routine use of polyethylene fiber reinforcement does not provide consistent benefits and may compromise performance.
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.