Trial reportClinical oral investigations2026
Clinical performance of an innovative self-cure bulk-fill composite compared to dual-cure and light-cure bulk-fill composite in posterior restorations: a 1-year randomized controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cuspal displacement, marginal adaptation, and nanoleakage in maxillary premolars restored with a novel auto-cured bulk-fill composite versus a light-cured bulk-fill composite: an in-vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Shrinkage Stress, Polymerization Kinetics, and Hardness of Light and Self-Cured Bulk-Fill Resin-Based Composites.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
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
objectivesTo evaluate and compare the 1-year clinical performance of self-cure, dual-cure, and light-cure bulk-fill composites in class II restorations. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty patients received sixty direct class II restorations, which were divided into three groups (n = 20): Group I: Self-cure bulk-fill (Stela capsules) with Stela primer, Group II: Dual-cure bulk-fill (Fill-Up) with ParaBond adhesive system, Group III: Light-cure bulk-fill (Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill) with Tetric N-Bond Universal adhesive. Using the Revised FDI criteria, restorations were assessed after 1 week (baseline) and at 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. FDI scores were compared between groups and across different time points using Friedman and Bonferroni post-hoc tests (P < 0.05).
resultsAll restorations demonstrated acceptable FDI scores, with a 100% survival rate over 12 months. For all functional and biological criteria, no significant differences were observed among the groups. Esthetic differences were observed where Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill demonstrated superior surface luster and texture compared with Stela capsules (P < 0.05), while Fill-Up showed intermediate performance. Stela capsules and Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill exhibited the highest color match scores, whereas Fill-Up was significantly lower (P < 0.05). No significant changes were observed over time.
conclusionsStela capsules and Fill-Up showed comparable 1-year functional and biological outcomes to Tetric N-Ceram Bulk Fill in class II restorations, while esthetic outcomes were material-dependent. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Self- and dual-cure bulk fill composites represent reliable alternatives to light-cure bulk fill materials for posterior restorations where esthetics are of lesser concern, offering simplified placement without compromising short-term clinical performance.
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.