Trial reportJournal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.]2026
Clinical Performance of Bulk-Fill Versus Incremental Composite Placement Approaches in Vital Posterior Teeth: A 24 Months Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.], 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07415317 (Influence of Composite Placement Techniques on the Clinical Performance of Posterior Restorations in Vital Teeth), which is not on this 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.
Influence of Composite Placement Techniques on the Clinical Performance of Posterior Restorations in Vital Teeth
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComposite resin placement technique may influence marginal integrity, polymerization stress distribution, and long-term clinical performance of posterior restorations. This randomized controlled clinical trial evaluated the 24-month clinical performance of four different placement techniques in Class I posterior composite restorations.
methodsFifty patients aged 20-35 years presenting with four occlusal carious lesions each were enrolled, resulting in 200 restorations. Cavities (4-5 mm depth) were prepared according to caries extension. Restorations were randomly allocated into four equal groups (n = 50) according to placement technique: stamp technique, snowplow technique, modified incremental "pizza" technique, and bulk-fill technique. All materials were applied following manufacturers' instructions. Clinical evaluation was performed at baseline and after 6, 12, and 24 months using FDI criteria. Functional (fracture/retention, marginal adaptation), esthetic (marginal staining, anatomical form), and biological (postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries) properties were assessed by two calibrated evaluators. Statistical analysis was performed at a significance level of α = 0.05.
resultsThirty-eight patients with a total of 152 restorations were evaluated at the end of the 24 months in line with FDI at the end of the study with 76% recall rates. No statistically significant differences were observed among groups regarding fracture/retention or secondary caries (p > 0.05). Marginal adaptation and marginal staining demonstrated minor deterioration over time across all groups, with statistically significant intergroup differences found (p < 0.05). Postoperative sensitivity was minimal and transient in all groups with no significant difference (p = 0.181).
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this 24-month follow-up, the four placement techniques demonstrated comparable clinical performance in Class I posterior composite restorations. Selection of technique may therefore be guided by clinical preference and procedural efficiency rather than differences in short-term clinical outcomes.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT07415317.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.