Table 2 Details of the study design and population of involved trials.

From: The clinical performance of bulk-fill versus the incremental layered application of direct resin composite restorations: a systematic review

Study

Study design

Participants (M/ F)

Average age (range in years)

Teeth restored

Follow-up

Salem et al., 202236

RCT double-blind, parallel

36 (9/27)

31 ± 7.6 years

36

1 year

Endo Hoshino et al., 202234

RCT double-blind, split mouth

53

48.3 years (±10.0)

159

4 years

Sekundo et al., 202237

RCT double-blind, split mouth

60 (31/29)

(≥18)

120

3 years

Hardan et al., 20216

RCT split mouth

30 (12/18)

25.8 ± 7.49 (18–45)

60

1 year

Durão et al., 202132

RCT double-blind, split mouth

46 (22/24)

14.82 (12–18)

138

3 years

Balkaya & Arslan, 202038

RCT double-blind, split mouth

54 (23/31)

22 (20–32)

109

2 years

Frascino et al., 202033

RCT double-blind, split mouth

53

48.3 ± 10

159

1 year

Al-Sheikh, 201935

RCT split mouth

40

(20–40)

80

6 months

Heck et al., 201839

RCT split mouth

46

(≥18)

96

10 years

Atabek et al., 201740

RCT split mouth

30

(7–16)

60

2 years

Bayraktar et al., 201741

RCT split mouth

50

25.8 ± 7.49 (18–45)

200

1 year

Colak et al., 201742

RCT double-blind, split mouth

34 (24/10)

33.74 ± 6.8 (23–56)

74

1 year

Karaman et al., 201743

RCT double-blind, split mouth

37 (16/21)

27 (19–41)

94

3 years

Van Dijken & Pallesen, 201744

RCT double-blind, split mouth

38 (22/16)

55.3 (32–87)

106

6 years

Yazici et al., 201745

RCT double-blind, split mouth

50 (24/26)

(24–55)

104

3 years

Alkurdi & Abboud, 201646

RCT parallel

60

(20–50)

60

1 year

Van Dijken & Pallesen, 201647

RCT double-blind, split mouth

86 (44/42)

52.4 (20–86)

200

5 years

Manhart et al., 201048

RCT split mouth

43

44.3 (19–67)

96

4 years

  1. RCT randomized clinical trial.