ArticleThe journal of adhesive dentistry2026
EFCD Expert Non-Consensus on Material and Technique Use for Direct Class II Composites With Guidance on Restoring Complex Cavities.
Article in The journal of adhesive 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThere is confusion over the indications, techniques, and material choices for placing direct class II composite restorations among general dentists. This paper synthesizes new data on the general frequency of use of materials and techniques by experts, with a previous related paper that explored if and how experts restored specific class II cavities with varying complexities. It aimed to see if consensus on technique and material use when restoring class II cavities with composite could be pursued. These findings are used to inform an overview of various techniques and provide guidance on the management of more complex class II cavities.
methodsAn international expert group (n = 9) developed an e-questionnaire. The first part of the questionnaire, reported here, covered the general frequency of material and technique use during cavity preparation, control of the operating field, soft tissue management, matrix selection, stabilization and peripheral seal, tooth separation, composite materials, application techniques, light curing, finishing, and polishing. It was distributed to 67 international clinicians with expertise in placing direct composite restorations (September 2024).
resultsResponse rate was 82%, with 95% of responders completing the first part of the survey. There was a wide variation in frequency of use of a broad variety of materials and techniques.
conclusionsInternational experts used a wide variety of materials and techniques for restoration of class II cavities with direct composite. Consensus was therefore not pursued. There are many potential techniques which can offer pragmatic solutions to directly restore complex class II cavities that are not beyond general practitioners.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42823852What 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.