ArticleBMC oral health2026
Flexural strength and fracture load of high-flow bulk-fill and conventional composites in ISO 4049 bars and MOD cavity models: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
backgroundHigh-flow bulk-fill (HFB) resin composites have been introduced to simplify restorative procedures by enabling bulk placement and improved cavity adaptation. However, evidence is limited regarding whether their mechanical performance as stand-alone materials is consistent across different testing geometries. This study aimed to compare the flexural strength and fracture load of HFB composites with a conventional paste-like posterior composite using ISO 4049 bar specimens and MOD shaped restorations.
methodsEighty specimens were fabricated and divided into two specimen configurations: ISO 4049 bar specimens (25 × 2 × 2 mm) and MOD shaped restorations (12 × 7 × 5 mm) (N = 40 each). Three HFB composites-Clearfil Majesty ES High Flow (CM), Tetric N Flow Bulk Fill (TF), and Estelite Universal High Flow (EU)-and one conventional paste-like posterior composite (GC G-aenial Posterior; GP) were tested (n = 10 per subgroup). ISO specimens were evaluated for flexural strength (MPa) and MOD specimens evaluated for fracture load (N) using a three-point bending and fracture load test at 1 mm/min. Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey post hoc tests (α = 0.05).
resultsRemarkably, the mechanical outcomes varied depending on the tested composite material and the specimen configuration (p < 0.05). In MOD shaped restorations, TF demonstrated the highest fracture load (1198.33 ± 188.83 N), followed by EU (1007.76 ± 182.37 N), GP (871.92 ± 227.67 N), and CM (776.10 ± 93.06 N). In ISO 4049 bar specimens, EU exhibited significantly higher flexural strength (85.84 ± 23.43 MPa) compared with CM (61.76 ± 2.99 MPa), TF (55.27 ± 12.04 MPa), and GP (54.19 ± 11.57 MPa) (p < 0.05). Material ranking differed between ISO bar and MOD specimen configurations.
conclusionsHFB resin composites showed flexural strength and fracture load values comparable to or higher than those of the conventional paste-like posterior composite. However, performance was material-dependent and influenced by specimen geometry. These findings highlight the importance of combining standardized and geometry-dependent testing approaches for a more comprehensive evaluation of restorative materials.
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.