Trial reportMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2013
A preliminary clinical trial using flowable glass-ionomer cement as a liner in proximal-ART restorations: the operator effect.
Trial report in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Survival percentages of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) restorations and sealants in posterior teeth: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2018Pooled it
- Atraumatic restorative treatment compared to the Hall Technique for occluso-proximal carious lesions in primary molars; 36-month follow-up of a randomised control trial in a school setting.BMC oral health · 2020Trial
- Effectiveness of conventional treatment using bulk-fill composite resin versus Atraumatic Restorative Treatments in primary and permanent dentition: a pragmatic randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2016Trial
- Insertion methods and gap/void formation in atraumatic restorative technique: A micro-CT analysis.Brazilian dental journalArticle
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
objectivesThis in vivo study was carried out to assess the influence of the operator experience on the survival rate of proximal-ART restorations using a two-layer technique to insert the glass-ionomer cement (GIC). STUDY
designForty five proximal cavities in primary molars were restored in a school setting according to the ART technique. The cavities were restored by two operators with Ketac Molar Easymix, and received a flowable layer of GIC prior to a second GIC layer with a regular consistency. The operators had different clinical experiences with ART (no experience or two years of experience), but both completed a one-week training to perform the restorations and the GIC mixing in this study.
resultsAfter a 12-month follow-up, 74% of the restorations survived; the main reason for failure was bulk fracture or total loss of the restoration.There was no operator influence (long-rank test p=0.2)
conclusionThe results encourage future well designed controlled clinical trials using the two-layer technique for insertion of GIC in proximal-ART restorations, after training the operators.
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.