ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Performance of low-viscosity resin composites containing S-PRG fillers under erosive challenge.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo characterize restorative materials, including low-viscosity resin composites containing or not S-PRG fillers, under erosive challenge.
methodsSpecimens of glass-ionomer (GC Gold Label 2-GL), resin composites without (Filtek Supreme Flowable Restorative-FSF; Filtek Bulk Fill Flowable Restorative-FBF) and with S-PRG fillers (Beautifil Flow Plus F00-F00 and Beautifil Bulk Flowable-BBF) were prepared. Materials were assessed for color stability (CIELab/CIEDE 2000), Knoop microhardness (KHN), flexural strength (FS), elastic modulus (E) and Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS) before and after cycling in orange juice (3 cycles/5min/5 days). Shrinkage stress (SS) was assessed to complement their characterization.
resultsMaterial, storage condition and their interaction were significant for most tests (p < 0.05). Under acidic conditions, GL was more vulnerable, with color change, reduced KHN, and elemental loss. Resin composites maintained both color stability and microhardness after erosive challenge. Among them, BBF and F00 exhibited higher KHN values than FBF. GL and BBF showed stable FS, while the elastic modulus increased for all materials except BBF. BBF also showed the lowest SS compared to FBF and GL.
conclusionsLow-viscosity resin composites, in particular containing S-PRG fillers were able to resist under erosive challenge. BBF presented the best balance of color stability, resistance and low SS among the tested materials. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The bulk-fill resin composite containing S-PRG fillers represents a promising restorative strategy for cervical erosive lesions, combining resistance to surface degradation with reduced shrinkage stress that may help preserve the adhesive interface.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41483054What 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.