Trial reportBMC oral health2025
Clinical evaluation of restorations made of ELS extra low shrinkage versus APT advanced polymer technology resin composite: a prospective randomized controlled clinical trial up to 3 years.
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 NCT03306576 (Clinical Evaluation of Restorations Made of ELS Versus ELS Extra Resin Composite), which is not on this 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.
Clinical Evaluation of Restorations Made of ELS Versus ELS Extra Resin Composite: A Prospective Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial up to 3 Years
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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe objective of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical performance of restorative material extra low shrinkage (ELS) versus advanced polymer technology (APT) based resin composite for Class I and Class II preparations in permanent teeth.
methodsBetween 12.12.2017–26.10.2018, 30 patients aged between 18 and 44 years old (22 females, 8 males, mean age: 25,2) received randomly 30 pairs of restorations restored using either ELS (Saremco, Switzerland) or APT composite (Saremco, Switzerland) in Class I and Class II cavities. Two operators performed all restorations using ELS and APT resin composites according to manufacturer’s instructions. Two independent calibrated operators evaluated the restorations 2 weeks after placement (baseline), at 6 months, 1 year, 2 and 3 years using FDI criteria (Scores 1–5) for surface staining, marginal staining, marginal gap, marginal fracture, marginal irregularities, secondary caries, marginal tooth integrity, surface luster, color match and translucency, fracture of material and retention, occlusal wear, approximal contact point, patient view, tooth integrity and post operative sensitivity.
resultsSixty restorations were placed of which 37 (ELS: 18, APT:19) were in the maxilla and 23 (ELS: 12, APT:11) in the mandible. From the occluso-cervical (OC) perspective, the dimension of the preparations ranged between 5 mm and 2.7 mm and from buccolingual (BL) dimension between 4 mm and 2 mm. 32 (53.3%) restorations completed their 2-year follow up, 50 restorations (83.3%) completed their 3 years. In the 2-year follow ups 1 endodontic complication was recorded in the APT group. With the 3 year results a total of 4 failures (2 restorations at 1 year, 2 restorations at 2 year) were recorded up to now. Both resin composite restorations were clinically acceptable.
conclusionsThis study provided promising evidence for application of ELS and APT materials applied in Class I and II cavities.
trial registrationThe study was registered at clinicaltrials.gov with registration No. NCT03306576 at 2017-10-11 and approved by İstanbul Medipol University Ethics Committee with protocol No:10840098-604.01.01-E.21,426 in accordance with the Decleration of Helsinki.
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.