ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2026
Comparative evaluation of effective curing depth and degree of polymerization of different flowable bulk fill composites: An
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Adequate polymerization of resin-based composites is essential for the clinical success of restorative procedures. Depth of cure (DOC) and degree of conversion (DC) directly influence the mechanical properties, marginal integrity, wear resistance, and biocompatibility of composite restorations. Bulk-fill flowable composites permit placement in increments of up to 4 mm, reducing clinical time. Recently introduced single-shade flowable bulk-fill composites claim improved optical blending and simplified shade selection; however, comparative evidence regarding their polymerization efficiency remains limited. Aim: To compare the DOC and DC of a single-shade flowable bulk-fill composite with two conventional flowable bulk-fill composites at a 4-mm increment. Methodology: Thirty-six cylindrical specimens (4 mm × 6 mm) were prepared and divided into three groups ( Results: Beautifil Bulk Flowable demonstrated the highest DOC and DC, followed by SDR Flow Plus and Charisma Bulk Flow ONE. Charisma Bulk Flow ONE failed to achieve the clinically acceptable HR of ≥ 0.80. Significant differences were observed among all groups ( Conclusion: Polymerization efficiency was material dependent. Conventional flowable bulk-fill composites showed superior curing behavior compared to the single-shade flowable bulk-fill composite.
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.