Evidence map›Paper›PMID 23904575›Full record

Trial reportJournal of the American Dental Association (1939)2013

Effectiveness of a resin-modified glass ionomer liner in reducing hypersensitivity in posterior restorations: a study from the practitioners engaged in applied research and learning network.

Brad Strober, Analia Veitz-Keenan, Julie Ann Barna, Abigail G Matthews, Donald Vena, Ronald G Craig, Frederick A Curro, Van P Thompson

Erratum issuedOpen access · bronzeAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of the American Dental Association (1939), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Cavity Bases Revisited.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2020
    Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Brad StroberBiomimetics and Biophotonics Research Group, The Dental Institute, King’s College London, Floor 17 Tower Wing, Guy’s Hospital, London SE1 9RT, England.
Analia Veitz-Keenan
Julie Ann Barna
Abigail G Matthews
Donald Vena
Ronald G Craig
Frederick A Curro
Van P Thompson
Alkermes (Ireland) · IENew York University · USKing's College London · GBUniversity of Dental Medicine · MM

Funding

Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and LearningU01DE016755 · NIDCR · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY · PI CURRO, FREDERICK ANTHONY · 2005 to 2011
$17.3M
NIDCR NIH HHS U01 DE016755NIDCR NIH HHS U01-DE016755
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe objectives of this randomized comparative effectiveness study conducted by members of the Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning (PEARL) Network were to determine whether using a resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI) liner reduces postoperative hypersensitivity (POH) in dentin-bonded Class I and Class II resin-based composite (RBC) restorations, as well as to identify other factors (putative risk factors) associated with increased POH.

methodsPEARL Network practitioner-investigators (P-Is) (n = 28) were trained to assess sensitivity determination, enamel and dentin caries activity rankings, evaluation for sleep bruxism, and materials and techniques used. The P-Is enrolled 341 participants who had hypersensitive posterior lesions. Participants were randomly assigned to receive an RBC restoration with or without an RMGI liner before P-Is applied a one-step, self-etching bonding agent. P-Is conducted sensitivity evaluations at baseline, at one and four weeks after treatment, and at all visits according to patient-reported outcomes.

resultsP-Is collected complete data regarding 347 restorations (339 participants) at baseline, with 341 (98 percent) (333 participants) recalled at four weeks. Treatment groups were balanced across baseline characteristics and measures. RBC restorations with or without an RMGI liner had the same one-week and four-week POH outcomes, as measured clinically (by means of cold or air stimulation) and according to patient-reported outcomes.

conclusionsUse of an RMGI liner did not reduce clinically measured or patient-reported POH in moderate-depth Class I and Class II restorations. Cold and air clinical stimulation findings were similar between groups. Practical Implications. The time, effort and expense involved in placing an RMGI liner in these moderate-depth RBC restorations may be unnecessary, as the representative liner used did not improve hypersensitivity outcomes.

Indexed as

Dental Cavity LiningAdolescentAdultCommunity-Based Participatory ResearchComposite ResinsDental EnamelDental MaterialsDental Plaque IndexDental Restoration, PermanentDentinDentin-Bonding AgentsDentin SensitivityFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGlass Ionomer CementsHumansClearfil SE BondComposite ResinsDental MaterialsDentin-Bonding AgentsGlass Ionomer CementsHerculite UltraResin CementsVitrabondposterior restorationsPostoperative hypersensitivityresin-based compositeresin-modified glass ionomer linerrestorative dentistrysensitivity

Identifiers

PMID23904575
PMCPMC4264603
OpenAlexW40821911

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.