ArticleBiomaterial investigations in dentistry2026
Biomechanical behavior of fiber-reinforced and bulk-fill composites in extensive class II restorations: a three-dimensional finite element analysis.
Article in Biomaterial investigations in dentistry, 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
Introduction: Owing to the complexity of dental architecture and the ongoing development of restorative materials, the biomechanical behavior within restored dental structures is not yet fully understood. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the stress distribution in extensive Class II restorations reinforced with different composite systems using 3D-Finite Element Analysis (FEA). Materials and Methods: A sound human mandibular first molar was digitized to generate a 3D solid model. Five experimental groups with mesio-occluso-distal (MOD) restorations were simulated: G1, bulk-fill composite core; G2, short fiber-reinforced composite (SFRC) core; G3, ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) fiber-reinforced core; C-, conventional nanohybrid composite; and C+, intact sound tooth. All restored groups received an occlusal and proximal veneering layer of conventional nanohybrid resin. A vertical load of 600 N was applied, and von Mises and maximum principal stresses were calculated. Results: The UHMWPE group exhibited the most favorable stress distribution, demonstrating the lowest stress concentrations in the coronal tooth structure (353.5 MPa) and the adhesive interface (11.10 MPa). Conversely, the SFRC group presented the highest stress values in the remaining tooth structure (359.9 MPa), while the bulk-fill group recorded elevated stress peaks within the veneering material (21.29 MPa). Notably, the polyethylene core absorbed the highest internal stress (13.31 MPa) compared to the other experimental groups. Conclusions: The type of structural reinforcement significantly dictates the biomechanics of Class II restorations. A core reinforced with polyethylene fibers (Ribbond THM) demonstrates a superior capacity to manage stress in high-load areas compared to SFRC (EverX Posterior) and bulk-fill composite (Tetric N-Ceram bulk fill).
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.