Trial reportScientific reports2026
Wear performance of different bulk-fill class II resin composite restorations: 3-year clinical evaluation.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of Simulated Oral Aging on Surface Roughness and Microhardness of Bulk-Fill Composite Resins.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Bioactive Fillers in Bulk-Fill Composite Resins: A Comprehensive Review of the Effects on Polymerization Shrinkage Behavior and Mechanical Performance.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
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
This study aimed to evaluate three-year qualitative and quantitative wear performance of a preheated body, an injectable and sonic bulk-fill resin composite, and compare it to that of a body bulk-fill composite placed in Class II cavities in a randomized clinical trial. For the clinical trial, 50 patients with a total of 80 Class II restorations in molars under normal occlusion were enrolled in this study. Restorations were placed by a single operator according to their manufacturers' instructions, with (n = 20) for each material as follows: body bulk-fill (Filtek™ One Bulk-fill/Scotchbond Universal Adhesive), preheated body bulk-fill (Filtek™ One Bulk-fill/Scotchbond Universal Adhesive), injectable bulk-fill (G-ænial™ BULK Injectable/G-Premio BOND), and sonic bulk-fill resin composite (SonicFill3/OptiBond™ Universal). Immediately after placement, the restorations were finished/polished. Wear evaluation was performed qualitatively using modified Fédération Dentaire International (FDI) Criteria and quantitatively using Geomagic Control X software at baseline and at yearly intervals. The changes in FDI parameters during the three-year periods were analyzed and compared with the Chi-square test. For quantitative data, One Way ANOVA test was used to compare different studied groups over follow-up periods. The t-test was used to compare enamel surface volume loss with restoration volume loss within each studied group after one, two, and three years of follow-up. After 3 years, 78 restorations were recalled (97.5% recall rate) with 100% survival. All materials remained clinically acceptable regarding qualitative wear performance. For quantitative wear performance, ANOVA shows a significant difference between volume loss of the tested groups after one and two years, but not significantly different after three years. Mean volumetric wear (mm
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.