ArticleBDJ open2026
Clinical performance of low-shrinkage giomer compared to nanohybrid resin composite in proximal restorations after one year: a randomized clinical trial.
Article in BDJ open, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe present study assesses the clinical performance and occlusal wear of low-shrinkage giomer and nanohybrid composite in proximal restorations.
methodsFifty participants with proximal caries in posterior teeth (n = 25) were recruited. Teeth were restored with either conventional nano-hybrid composite (Filtek Z250XT, 3M ESPE, USA) or low-shrinkage giomer (Beautifil II LS, Shofu Inc, Japan). Clinical performance was assessed using revised FDI criteria at baseline, 6 and 12 months. Wear was assessed after 12 months by using 3D inspection and metrology software (Geomagic Control X; 3D Systems, USA). FDI scores were analyzed using Chi‑square test for intergroup comparisons and Cochran's Q‑test for intragroup comparisons. Wear data were analyzed using independent t test for intergroup comparison and paired t test for intragroup comparisons.
resultsAt the 12-month follow-up, both Beautifil II LS and Filtek Z250XT exhibited high clinical success rates, with 100% and 96% success rates, respectively. Beautifil II LS restorations had a 4% lower risk of failure compared to Filtek Z250XT (ARR = 4.0 (95% CI -12.6 to 19.5, P > 0.05)). The mean wear after 12 months was 0.036 ± 0.01 mm for Beautifil II LS and 0.038 ± 0.01 mm for Filtek Z250XT. The difference between groups was minimal (0.0026 mm; 95% CI: -0.0271 to 0.0324) and not statistically significant (P = 0.8178).
conclusionLow-shrinkage giomer showed satisfactory clinical performance and wear resistance compared to nanohybrid resin composite after one year. Both materials are considered clinically acceptable as per the American Dental Association (ADA) standards.
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.