ArticleJournal of applied oral science : revista FOB2026
Self-adhesive flowable resin composite for occluso-proximal restorations in primary teeth: restorative time and fracture resistance analysis.
Article in Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis in vitro study evaluated the restorative time and fracture resistance of occluso-proximal restorations in primary molars using a self-adhesive flowable resin composite, a flowable resin composite, and a conventional resin composite. METHODOLOGY: Thirty primary molars received two standardized occluso-proximal cavities and were randomly assigned to three groups (n=10): (1) self-adhesive flowable resin composite (Yflow SA), with the entire cavity restored; (2) universal adhesive (Scotchbond Universal) in self-etch mode + flowable resin composite (Filtek Z350 XT Flow), with the entire cavity restored; and (3) universal adhesive in self-etch mode + conventional resin composite (Filtek Z350 XT), inserted incrementally. Restoration time was measured using a digital chronometer, and all teeth underwent 14 days of pH cycling before the fracture resistance test. Mean fracture resistance values were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test. The Kruskal-Wallis and Dwass-Steel-Critchlow-Fligner tests were used to compare the restoration time among groups. Failure modes were analyzed descriptively.
resultsThe self-adhesive flowable resin composite required the shortest restoration time, followed by the flowable resin composite and the conventional resin composite (p<0.001). Fracture resistance was significantly lower in the self-adhesive flowable resin composite group compared to the flowable and conventional resin composite groups (p<0.01). Adhesive failures predominated in the self-adhesive flowable resin composite group (45%), while mixed failures were more frequent in the other restorative approaches (70-75%).
conclusionIn a laboratory setting, the use of a self-adhesive flowable resin composite for the entire cavity compromised the fracture resistance of occluso-proximal restorations in primary molars, despite reducing operative time.
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.