ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry : JCD
One year comparative clinical evaluation of EQUIA with resin-modified glass ionomer and a nanohybrid composite in noncarious cervical lesions.
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry : JCD. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- Sixty-month comperative evaluation of a glass hybrid restorative and a composite resin in non-carious cervical lesions of bruxist individuals.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Trial
- Twenty-four-month clinical performance of a glass hybrid restorative in non-carious cervical lesions of patients with bruxism: a split-mouth, randomized clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2020Trial
- One-year evaluation of a new restorative glass ionomer cement for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions in patients with systemic diseases: a randomized, clinical trial.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2020Trial
- Three-year clinical evaluation of high-viscosity glass ionomer restorations in non-carious cervical lesions: a randomised controlled split-mouth clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2019Trial
- Comparative Analysis of Flexural and Compressive Strengths of Bioactive Alkasite Compared to Other Ion-Releasing Restorative Materials.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Fluoride Release/Uptake and Physical Properties of Self-adhesive GC Gold Label Hybrid and Antibiotic-modified Glass Ionomer Cement: AnInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2025Article
- Clinical evaluation of giomer-based injectable resin composite versus resin-modified glass ionomer in class V carious lesions over 18 months: A randomized clinical trial.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025Article
- Assessment of Flexural and Compressive Strengths of EQUIA, GC Gold Hybrid, and Conventional GIC Restorative Materials.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2023Article
- Effect of different polishing techniques on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of three glass ionomer-based restorative materials:Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2020Article
- One-year comparative evaluation of Ketac Nano with resin-modified glass ionomer cement and Giomer in noncarious cervical lesions: A randomized clinical trial.Journal of conservative dentistry : JCDArticle
- Comparative Evaluation of Compressive Strength of Self-cure, Dual-cure, and Light-cure Glass Ionomer Cements in a Simulated Oral Environment: AnInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistryArticle
- Comparative Evaluation of Postoperative Sensitivity in Bulk Fill Restoratives: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimsComparative evaluation of EQUIA with a resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC; GC Gold Label glass ionomer light cured universal restorative cement) and a nanohybrid composite (Tetric N-Ceram) in noncarious cervical lesions (NCCLs).
backgroundTo establish the most suitable material for the restoration of NCCLs. SETTINGS AND
designIn vivo study. MATERIALS AND
methodsEighty-seven NCCLs were randomly restored with EQUIA, a RMGIC, and a nanohybrid composite. Clinical evaluation of the restorations was done following the Unites States Public Health criteria by a single-blinded investigator. Data were formulated, and statistical analysis was done by Chi-square test. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Chi-square test.
resultsNo significant difference was found between EQUIA, RMGIC, and nanohybrid composite at 1-month, at 6 months, and at 1-year (P > 0.05).
conclusionsEQUIA, resin-modified glass ionomer, and nanohybrid composite performed equally at 1-month, 6 months, and 1-year follow-up periods.
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.