Trial reportClinical oral investigations2026
Comparison between flowable and flowable bulk-fill composites in the manufacture of attachments for orthodontic aligners: a split-mouth randomized 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. 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionOrthodontic aligner attachments are crucial for enhancing dental movements that aligners alone cannot achieve. With recent advancements in design and materials, treatment precision and efficacy are improving. This study aimed to compare conventional and bulk-fill flowable composites in fabricating orthodontic attachments to determine their loss rate and clinical outcomes.
methodsThis split-mouth randomized clinical trial enrolled 50 participants (21 men and 29 women; mean age 37.86 ± 6.90 years), who were allocated to two treatment sequences (25 participants per group). In Group 1, the right side received 3 M Filtek Supreme Flowable and the left side received 3 M Filtek Bulk Fill Flowable; in Group 2, the allocation was reversed. This design allowed an intra-individual comparison between materials.
resultsAfter 140 days of follow-up, 150 of 800 attachments had been lost and rebonded, corresponding to an overall failure rate of 18.75%. No statistically significant differences were found between materials when evaluating individual teeth, contralateral teeth, or time to failure. Cox regression showed no significant difference between groups (HR = 0.84; 95% CI, 0.60-1.16; p = 0.293).
conclusionFlowable and flowable bulk-fill composites showed similar clinical performance and attachment survival. REGISTRATION: This clinical trial was registered under UTN U1111-1303-5576 at the Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC).
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.