Trial reportClinical oral investigations2026
Clinical performance of a bulk-fill versus a nanofilled resin composite in non-carious cervical lesions with different extensions: a 6-years randomized, parallel, double-blind clinical trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of physicomechanical and optical properties of bioactive glass (BAG)-filled resin composites: anBiomaterial investigations in dentistry · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the clinical performance of a regular bulk-fill (Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior) and a regular nanofilled (Filtek Z350 XT) resin composite in restoring non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) with different occlusogingival distance (OGD).
methodsA randomized, parallel, double-blind controlled trial was conducted with 77 participants. One hundred and forty NCCLs were categorized by their OGD as 1.5 mm (±10%) or 3 mm (±10%). Lesions were randomized into four groups (n=35) and restored with Filtek Bulk Fill Posterior (1.5 mm-B and 3 mm-B) or Filtek Z350 XT (1.5 mm-C and 3 mm-C). The self-etch adhesive Clearfil SE Bond was used in all procedures. Two calibrated, blinded examiners evaluated the restorations at 6 years (range 66-94 months) using modified USPHS criteria. Survival analysis (retention/fracture) was performed using Kaplan-Meier (Log-rank test), and secondary outcomes were analyzed with Friedman's and Wilcoxon tests (α=0.05).
resultsAfter 6 years, 99 restorations were evaluated. Thirteen restorations were lost resulting in retention rates of 85.7% for 1.5 mm-C, 91.4% for 1.5 mm-B, 91.4% for 3 mm-C, and 91.4% for 3 mm-B. Significant marginal discrepancy was observed for 1.5 mm-B, 3 mm-C, and 3 mm-B (p < 0.01). Fifty-eight restorations showed minor marginal staining and 72 were rated Bravo for surface texture, with no significant differences among groups or compared to the 30-month evaluation (p>0.05). No significant difference was found for the other parameters.
conclusionThe regular bulk-fill demonstrated similar clinical performance to the regular nanofilled resin composite in NCCLs, regardless of the OGD after 6 years of clinical service. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This is the first 6 years clinical trial showing the long-term behavior of a bulk-fill resin composite in NCCLs. The OGD of NCCLs appears not to influence the clinical performance of resin composite.
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.