ArticleCureus2026
A Comparative Evaluation of the Postoperative Sensitivity of Bulk-Fill Versus Conventional Resin Class II Composite Restorations: A Prospective Observational Study.
Article in Cureus, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Postoperative sensitivity can be a prevalent issue in class II composite restorations, which may impact patient satisfaction levels. This prospective observational study aimed to compare the postoperative sensitivity of bulk-fill and conventional resin composites in class II restorations over one month. Methods Sixty-two patients with moderate-depth class II carious lesions in posterior teeth were consecutively enrolled. Restorations were performed using either a bulk-fill composite (Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill, Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein) in a single 4-mm increment or a conventional composite (Filtek Supreme XTE, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) in 2-mm oblique increments, based on clinician judgment. The same universal adhesive and standardized operative protocol were used in both groups. Postoperative sensitivity was assessed using a Visual Analog Scale in response to thermal and occlusal stimuli at 24 h, one week, and one month. Clinical outcomes including restoration fractures, marginal gaps, and secondary caries were evaluated. Baseline characteristics were compared using independent t-tests and chi-square tests. Sensitivity scores were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U tests and a mixed-effects model. Results Both groups were comparable in terms of age, cavity depth, sex, and tooth type. Median sensitivity scores were similar at 24 h and one month, but significantly lower in the bulk-fill group at one week. The mixed-effects model revealed a significant main effect of material, with overall lower sensitivity in the bulk-fill group and a significant reduction over time in both groups without an interaction effect. The quantitative analysis indicated a reduced incidence of restoration fractures, marginal discrepancies, and secondary caries within the bulk-fill cohort; however, these differences did not reach statistical significance. Conclusion Bulk-fill composite restorations exhibited a markedly reduced overall postoperative sensitivity in comparison to traditional composites in class II cavities, notably observable at the one-week mark, while also demonstrating similar short-term clinical efficacy.
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.