ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2026
In vitro evaluation of the microhardness of conventional and bulk-fill resins based on the depth of light-curing and the curing unit.
Review in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 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
Background: To evaluate the microhardness of conventional and bulk-fill composite resins based on the depth of light-curing (2 mm and 4 mm) and the curing unit used (VALO Grand and BluePhase N G4 lamp). Material and Methods: Discs were fabricated using two bulk-fill resins: Beautifil Bulk (BB) and Filtek Bulk Fill (ZB); and two conventional resins: Beautiful II (BC) and Filtek Z350 XT (ZC). For the preparation, the light-curing depth was set at 2 and 4 mm, and the curing units used were VALO Grand and BluePhase N G4. Microhardness was measured using the Vickers test on light-cured samples under standardized conditions. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA and the Tukey test (p < 0.05). Results: Significant differences were found between the groups, with the BB 4mm Valo group exhibiting the lowest microhardness values and significant differences compared to the others. Meanwhile, the 4 mm Bluephase ZC resin exhibited the highest microhardness values compared to the bulk-fill resin. At a thickness of 2 mm, the conventional resins showed similar values regardless of the polymerization source, except for BB, which performed better with the Valo unit. In addition, Valo demonstrated good performance with ZC at both thicknesses and results comparable to Beautifil II at 2 mm. Bluephase showed consistent values across all groups and depths, with superior performance when applied over ZC. Conclusions: The results showed that the final microhardness of the restorative material is influenced by a combination of resin type, depth, and light-curing unit; the conventional composite resin that exhibited the highest microhardness values was ZC, light-cured using a Bluephase light source at a thickness of 4 mm, compared to the bulk-fill resin.
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.