ArticleBMC oral health2026
Evaluation of fracture resistance of class V premolar restorations reinforced with Ribbond and InFibra fibers using two placement techniques: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe study aim was to evaluate the fracture resistance of premolar teeth with class V cavities restored with two types of polyethylene fibers using two different techniques of fiber placement in comparison to traditional composite restoration.
methodSeventy-five intact maxillary premolar teeth were randomly divided into five groups (n = 15). Group 1 (control): class V cavities were filled with flowable resin composite, Beautifil flow plus F03; Group2 (Ribbond MD): Ribbond fiber placed horizontally in a mesiodistal orientation on the axial wall of the cavity; Group 3 (Ribbond OG): Ribbond fiber placed on the axial wall of the cavity in an occlusogingival orientation; Group 4 (InFibra MD): InFibra fiber placed horizontally in a mesiodistal orientation on the axial wall of the cavity; Group 5 (InFibra OG): InFibra fiber placed on the axial wall of the cavity in an occlusogingival orientation. After fiber placement, all cavities were filled with the same flowable resin composite, Beautifil flow plus F03 and cured for 10 s. Fracture resistance was assessed using a universal testing machine. Failure mode was also analyzed using magnification loupes.
resultsA one-way ANOVA that was performed to assess fracture resistance across the five groups, showed no statistically meaningful differences among groups (F = 0.3034, p = 0.8722), with an extremely small effect size (η² = 0.0572). Post hoc analyses with Tukey's HSD revealed that no pairwise differences were significant (p > 0.05). Failure mode results revealed 60% favorable fractures in the control group, Ribbond MD and Ribbond OG each demonstrated 20% favorable fractures, whereas InFibra MD and InFibra OG recorded no favorable fractures.
conclusionThe incorporation of polyethylene fibers (Ribbond or InFibra) into moderately deep Class V cavities did not significantly enhance the fracture resistance of the teeth. Furthermore, the addition of these fibers was associated with a higher frequency of unfavorable fractures.
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.