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.
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.
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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of different cavity liners compared to no cavity lining in managing deep caries in vital permanent teeth - a systematic review.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Pooled it
- Effect of different adhesive systems on dental defects and sensitivity to teeth in composite resin restoration: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Pooled it
- Dental cavity liners for Class I and Class II resin-based composite restorations.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Dental cavity liners for Class I and Class II resin-based composite restorations.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2016Pooled it
- 3-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the performance of posterior composite restorations lined with ion-releasing materials.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- Effect of cavity lining on the restoration of root surface carious lesions: a split-mouth, 5-year randomized controlled clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2020Trial
- Minimally invasive selective caries removal: a clinical guide.British dental journal · 2023Article
- Cavity Bases Revisited.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2020Review
- Consequences of no more linings under composite restorations.British dental journal · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on bySpelling it out.2013
- Commented on byEditor's note.2013
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
8 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
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
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.