ArticleScientific reports2026
Effect of deep marginal elevation with different intermediate materials on the fracture resistance of direct and indirect final composite restorations: an in vitro study.
Article in Scientific reports, 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
To compare an injectable hybrid composite for deep marginal elevation with a resin-modified glass ionomer and a flowable composite, and to assess their effects on the fracture resistance of direct restorations and indirect resin composite inlays at different depths. Ninety non-carious maxillary premolar teeth were selected to receive standardized mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) cavity preparations. The specimens were systematically classified into subgroups and classes as follows: Groups (Restorative Material): Specimens were divided into two main groups (N = 45) based on the nano-ceramic resin composite used (Spectra ST): direct restorations or indirect inlay restorations. Subgroups (Intermediate Material): Each group was further divided into three equal subgroups (N = 15) based on the intermediate material (B) used: resin-modified glass ionomer (B1:RMGI), flowable resin composite (B2), and injectable hybrid composite (B3).Classes (Gingival Box Depth): Finally, each subgroup was subdivided into three classes (N = 5) based on the depth of the gingival box (D) relative to the cementoenamel junction (CEJ): at the CEJ (D1), 2 mm above the CEJ (D2), and 2 mm below the CEJ (D3). Fracture resistance was tested using a universal testing machine. Fracture types were assessed under a stereomicroscope. Selected samples underwent scanning electron microscopy analysis. Data were statistically analyzed using Fisher's exact test, z-tests, Shapiro-Wilk tests, Levene's tests, and a three-way ANOVA. direct restorations and indirect inlay restorations did not significantly affect fracture resistance when considered as a standalone factor (p = 0.686). For the injectable hybrid composite, the indirect composite inlay exhibited higher fracture resistance at and above the CEJ (p < 0.001*). The flowable composite showed a significant difference across depths when used as a direct composite restoration (p = 0.025*). For RMGI, the indirect composite inlay was significantly superior only below the CEJ (p < 0.001*). The box depth below the CEJ generally reduced fracture resistance. While a comparison between direct restorations vs. indirect composite inlay restorations alone does not dictate fracture resistance, material choice and cavity depth are critical. Indirect composite inlay restorations using injectable hybrid composites provide superior strength at/above the Cementum-Enamel Junction (CEJ), while RMGI excels only below it; greater depth reduces overall resistance.
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.