ArticleFrontiers in dental medicine2026
Influence of thickness and base material in class II restorations with nanofilled composites: finite element study.
Article in Frontiers in dental medicine, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Statement of problem: The selection of restorative and base materials in the restoration of large cavity preparations remains a debatable issue, and it is unclear how functional stresses affect Class II (MOD) restorations. Objective: To evaluate the influence of base material type and thickness on stress distribution in Class II MOD restorations using various nanofilled packable composites. Material and methods: Eight three-dimensional finite element models were developed: six experimental models combining three restorative composites (Filtek Supreme, Grandio and Admira Fusion) with two base materials [flowable resin composite [FR] and resin-modified glass ionomer [RMGI]] at thicknesses of 0.5 mm, 1.0 mm, and 1.5 mm; and two control models, including restorations without a base layer and a healthy, intact tooth. A static vertical load of 600 N was applied along the tooth's long axis, and Von Mises stress distribution was analyzed within the base, restoration, and dental structures. Results: The sound tooth model exhibited the lowest stress concentration (20.777 MPa). Among the restored groups, models without a base layer showed higher stress values, with Filtek Supreme XTE reaching a maximum of 31.243 MPa. Overall, the incorporation of base materials improved stress distribution. The most favorable outcomes among the restored models were observed with the combination of Grandio and Fuji II GC glass ionomer, which yielded the lowest stress value (20.846 MPa). In contrast, the use of 1.5 mm-thick flowable resin bases tended to increase stress levels (up to 32.031 MPa in the Admira Fusion models) compared with thinner layers or glass ionomer alternatives. Conclusion: Thicker resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) bases provide a more favorable stress distribution than flowable resin composite (FR) bases in Class II restorations.
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.