ArticleJournal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects2025
Influence of composite resin type and curing method on the fracture resistance of class II restorations: An in vitro comparison.
Article in Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects, 2025. 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
Background: The selection of the restorative material and the use of inadequate curing protocols can affect the mechanical performance of composite resin restorations. This in vitro study aimed to determine the influence of restorative material type and curing method on the fracture resistance of restorations with proximal involvement. Methods: A total of 120 extracted human molars were selected, and Cl II cavities (OM) were prepared, maintaining consistent dimensions across all teeth. The samples were randomly divided into two experimental groups: teeth restored with a nanohybrid composite resin (Filtek Z350XT) and teeth restored with Ormocer-based composite resin (Admira Fusion). Each group was further subdivided according to the curing method: pre-curing, co-curing, and simultaneous curing. In addition, two control groups were included: a negative control consisting of prepared but unrestored teeth, and a positive control consisting of intact, sound teeth. Fracture resistance was evaluated using a universal testing machine. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA and post hoc Tukey tests (α=0.05). Results: Two-way ANOVA revealed significant effects of both the composite resin type (F=1750.4, Conclusion: The fracture resistance of Cl II composite resin restorations was significantly influenced by both the composite formulation and the curing protocol.
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.