ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2026
Clinical Performance of Two Resin Composite Materials in Class II Cavities in Primary Molars: An Observational Study.
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Composite resins have seen significant development. In pediatric dentistry, direct composite resin restorations are becoming a crucial component of conservative care. Since their initial introduction, these materials have undergone fast evolution, leading to more esthetically pleasing and long-lasting repairs. As a result, amalgam in dentistry underwent a paradigm change in favor of more tooth-structure-preserving composites. Aim: To evaluate and compare the clinical performance of a flowable composite resin and a packable composite resin in class II direct restorations in primary molars using a self-etch adhesive system. Methods: Two distinct restorative materials-flowable composite (G-aenial Universal Flo, GC) and packable composite (G-aenial Posterior)-were used in a total of 24 class II restorations in 24 patients. Composite resin restorations were assessed using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria at baseline, 3, 6, and 12 months. Data were analyzed using the Chi-square test ( Results: Anatomical form and color match were statistically significant in G-aenial Universal Flo at third month, and the differences between the two materials were even more noticeable at 1 year, with flowable composite maintaining 91.7% anatomical form and packable composite drastically dropping to 33.3% ( Conclusion: When compared to G-aenial Posterior packable composite at one year, G-aenial Universal Flo flowable composite has shown superior clinical results in class II restorations for primary molars. Clinical significance: G-aenial Universal Flo offers superior durability, esthetics, caries resistance, and reliable performance even in moist conditions, making it ideal for restoring primary molars in children. How to cite this article: Vijayakumar PM, John JB, Eswara K,
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.