Trial reportClinical oral investigations2026
A two-year randomized clinical trial of bulk-fill and ion-releasing composites with universal adhesives in class V carious lesions.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 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
objectivesTo evaluate the two-year clinical performance of Class V restorations in carious cervical lesions placed with bulk-fill resin composite or ion-releasing composite, combined with either fluoride-free or fluoride-releasing universal adhesives. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this double-blind, randomized clinical trial, 140 Class V restorations were placed using four restorative systems: bulk-fill composite with fluoride-free adhesive, bulk-fill composite with fluoride-releasing adhesive, ion-releasing composite with fluoride-free adhesive, and ion-releasing composite with fluoride-releasing adhesive. Restorations were placed under rubber-dam isolation using selective enamel etching. Clinical evaluations were performed at baseline, 6 months, one year, and two years using periodontal indices and FDI criteria. Data were analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis, Friedman, Mann–Whitney U, and Wilcoxon signed-rank tests (α = 0.05).
resultsRecall rates were 96.4% at 6 months, 89.3% at 1 year, and 83.5% at 2 years. Periodontal parameters showed no significant differences among groups. No significant differences were observed between restorative systems for any FDI functional, biological, or esthetic criteria at any evaluation point. All restorations remained clinically acceptable, with no loss of retention, fractures, or secondary caries throughout the two-year follow-up. Marginal adaptation scores remained stable and comparable among all groups.
conclusionsAll four restorative systems demonstrated comparable and favorable clinical performance over two years. The use of fluoride-releasing adhesives or ion-releasing composites did not confer additional clinical benefits under the conditions of this trial. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Both the tested bulk-fill resin composite and ion-releasing composite deliver predictable short-term performance in Class V restorations, without additional benefit from fluoride-releasing components.
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.