ArticleOdontology2026
An in vitro micro-computed tomography analysis of internal voids: single-shade bulk-fill versus high-strength restorative composite.
Article in Odontology, 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
This study aimed to investigate the internal void formation of two single-shade bulk-fill flowable composite resin and a high-strength restorative composite at different thickness levels by 3D micro-computed tomography (CT) analysis. Two different single-shade flowable bulk-fill composite resins (Charisma Bulk Flow One-CH and Omnichroma Flow Bulk-OM), and a high-strength restorative composite (G-aenial Universal Injectable-INJ) were used in this study. Cylinder-shaped samples were prepared at three different thicknesses (2, 4, and 6 mm) from each test material (n = 3). Samples were scanned utilising a micro-CT device, and internal voids of the materials were evaluated. Data were analyzed with Jamovi v2.7.6 and Mi nitab v14. Robust ANOVA was applied when normality was not met for the interaction between material and thickness. Multiple comparisons were analyzed with Holm-corrected robust t-test. Generalized linear models were used when normal distribution was met. Multiple comparisons were employed with Tukey test. Significance level was set as p < 0.05. Material*thickness interaction did not significantly affect total porosity percentages of the tested groups (p > 0.05), whereas it influenced total number of voids significantly (p < 0.001). Regardless of different thicknesses, the composite resin's median total porosity and the number of total void values from the lowest to the highest total porosity percentages were as follows: INJ < OM < CH. The total number of voids increased as the thickness increased for the bulk-fill composite resins. Single-shade bulk-fill composite resins exhibited higher total porosity values.
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.