ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
One-year clinical performance of polyethylene fiber-reinforced direct composite restorations in endodontically treated posterior teeth.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study evaluated the 1-year clinical performance of polyethylene fiber-reinforced direct composite restorations placed in different orientations in endodontically treated premolars and molars. MATERIALS AND
methodsEighty-five patients with 90 endodontically treated posterior teeth (32 premolars, 58 molars) received direct composite restorations using Clearfil SE Bond (Kuraray Noritake Dental Inc., Japan), G-aenial Universal Injectable and G-aenial A'CHORD (GC Corp., Japan), and polyethylene fiber (Ribbond, Ribbond Inc., USA). According to cavity configuration, fibers were placed in circumferential (O), mesiodistal (MD), or buccolingual (BL) orientations. Clinical performance was assessed using modified USPHS criteria at 7 days, 6 months, and 12 months.
resultsAll restorations maintained Alpha scores for color match and secondary caries throughout the study period. At 12 months, limited Bravo scores were observed for retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, anatomical form, and surface texture. One restoration in the MD group received a Charlie score for retention and required replacement. No statistically significant differences were detected among the three fiber-orientation groups for any evaluated parameter (p > 0.05).
conclusionsPolyethylene fiber-reinforced direct composite restorations demonstrated favorable short-term clinical performance in endodontically treated posterior teeth. Fiber orientation did not significantly influence clinical outcomes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42439954What 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.