Trial reportBMC oral health2026
Short-term clinical and micromorphological comparison of injectable and paste composites in occlusal cavities.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06192667 (24- Month Clinical Performance of Injectable and Conventional Resin Composites in Class I Cavities), which is not on this 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.
24- Month Clinical Performance of Injectable and Conventional Resin Composites in Class I Cavities
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
backgroundThe aim of this clinical trial was to evaluate and compare the 12-month performance of a contemporary injectable and a conventional paste-type resin composite in Class I cavities using the modified USPHS criteria, supported by SEM analysis.
methodsA total of 72 teeth from 34 volunteers were included. Each participant received at least two restorations (one per material); in cases where more eligible cavities were present, additional restorations were performed accordingly. All restorations were performed under rubber dam isolation following conservative Class I cavity preparation, using selective enamel etching and a universal adhesive. All procedures were carried out by the same clinician using a paste-type resin composite (Filtek Z250 Universal Restorative) and an injectable resin composite (G-ænial Universal Injectable). Two calibrated investigators evaluated restorations at baseline, 6, and 12 months using modified USPHS criteria. SEM analysis was conducted on a total of 66 epoxy replicas obtained at baseline, 6, and 12 months from 11 randomly selected participants. Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (Version 23.0, IBM, NY) with Pearson's chi-square and Cochran's Q tests.
resultsBoth materials demonstrated comparable and clinically acceptable performance over the 12-month evaluation period according to the modified USPHS criteria, with no statistically significant differences observed at any time point across all criteria, although minor changes were observed in marginal adaptation and color match in a few restorations (p > 0.05). All participants attended the follow-up visits, resulting in a 100% recall and retention rate.
conclusionThe injectable (G-ænial Universal Injectable) and paste-type (Filtek Z250) resin-composites demonstrated comparable and clinically acceptable short-term performance in Class I occlusal restorations, although longer-term follow-up is needed to confirm these findings.
trial registrationAs trial registration took place after the first participant was enrolled, the study was retrospectively registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on December 21, 2023, with ID: NCT06192667. https://register. CLINICALTRIALS: gov/prs/beta/studies/S000DTX600000072/recordSummary /.
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.