ArticleActa odontologica latinoamericana : AOL2025
Assessment of compressive and flexural properties of three contemporary bulk fill resin composites.
Article in Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionContemporary restorative materials must demonstrate how much stress they can withstand before permanently deforming under the constant forces generated during chewing.
aimTo compare the compressive and flexural strength of three bulk fill resin composites. MATERIALS AND
methodThis study analyzed three bulk fill resin composites: Opus™ bulk fill (OBF), Tetric® N-Ceram bulk fill (TNC), and Filtek™ bulk fill (FBF), and one conventional resin composite: Filtek™ Z350XT (FZXT) as a control group. Each composite was used to prepare 14 cylindrical specimens (n=56) for compressive strength tests, and 19 rectangular specimens (n=76) for flexural strength tests. Mechanical tests were performed using an Instron® universal testing machine - 100 kN load at a speed of 1 mm/1min.
resultsDescriptive (Mean ± SD) and inferential statistics (Kruskal-Wallis test/ post-hoc test), p<0.05 were used. The compressive test results (Means ± SD) were: OBF (141.68MPa ± 22.20), TNC (139.03MPa ± 23.56), FBF (235.59MPa ± 26.08), and FZXT (99.28MPa ± 11.36). The flexural test results (Means ± SD) were: OBF (116.29 ± 7.20), TNCBF (109.67MPa ± 7.58), FBF (200.53MPa ± 10.32), and FZXT (90.08MPa ± 8.63). Statistically significant differences were found between the resin composites (p<0.001) in both mechanical tests.
conclusionsThe bulk fill resin composites demonstrated higher compressive and flexural strength than the conventional resin composite. However, the use of these restorative materials may depend on specific clinical requirements and material handling preferences.
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.