ArticlePakistan journal of medical sciences2026
Comparative evaluation of physical and mechanical properties of ion-releasing and non-ion-releasing bulk-fill restorative composites.
Article in Pakistan journal of medical sciences, 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
Objective: This laboratory study aimed to compare the performance of non-ion and ion-releasing restorative composites. Methodology: This Results: Filtek Bulk demonstrated the highest depth of cure (4.34 ± 0.29 mm) and bending strength (123.34 ± 9.05 MPa), succeeded by Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill (3.81 ± 0.17 mm, 115.78 ± 10.98 MPa). Additionally, Filtek Bulk and Tetric EvoCeram Bulk Fill exhibited significantly lower water sorption (0.49 ± 0.13% and 0.79 ± 0.10%, respectively) and solubility (0.01 ± 0.00% and 0.04 ± 0.00%, respectively) compared to ion-releasing composites, Beautifil Bulk Restorative and ACTIVA BioACTIVE Bulk (1.26 ± 0.19% and 1.42 ± 0.20%; 0.10 ± 0.01% and 0.14 ± 0.01%, respectively) (P < 0.05). Conclusion: While ion-releasing composites offer the benefit of reducing secondary caries risk and remineralization of the tooth, their physical and mechanical properties may not be on par with those of conventional non-ion-releasing restorative composites, potentially affecting their long-term performance in deep restorations. Therefore, the clinicians are advised to exercise caution in using these restorative composites.
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.