Trial reportTrials2016
Clinical performance during 48 months of two current glass ionomer restorative systems with coatings: a randomized clinical trial in the field.
Trial report in Trials, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04298151 (Clinical Evaluation of Zirconia Reinforced Versus Conventional Viscous Glass Ionomer in Posterior Restorations of Geriatric Patients), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 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.
Clinical Evaluation of Zirconia Reinforced Versus Conventional Viscous Glass Ionomer in Posterior Restorations of Geriatric Patients: Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical Performance of Glass Ionomer Cement in Load-Bearing Restorations: A Systematic Review.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024Pooled it
- One-year clinical evaluation of a giomer-based injectable composite compared with a highly viscous glass-ionomer cement in restoring class II cavities of primary molars: a randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Clinical performance of a glass-hybrid system in comparison with a resin composite in two-surface class II restorations: a 5-year randomised multi-centre study.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Trial
- 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
- The effect of different glass ionomer cements and surface coating applications on fluoride release and microhardness values.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Six-year survival and clinical performance of glass hybrid restorations following selective caries removal in teeth with molar incisor hypomineralization: a prospective cohort study.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Dental Amalgam Phase-Down-Status, Alternatives, Strategies and Preparedness for Implementation: A Review.International journal of dentistry · 2025Review
- A Critical Review on the Factors Affecting the Bond Strength of Direct Restorative Material Alternatives to Amalgam.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Evaluation of a Method to Determine Wear Resistance of Class I Tooth Restorations during Cyclic Loading.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Evaluation of Shear Bond Strength between Resin Composites and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement in Class II Restorative Technique-An In Vitro Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Comparison of Fluoride Release in Conventional Glass-Ionomer Cements with a New Mechanical Mixing Cement.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2020Article
- Microhardness of glass carbomer and high-viscous glass Ionomer cement in different thickness and thermo-light curing durations after thermocycling aging.BMC oral health · 2019Article
- Clinical Performance of Zirconia Reinforced versus Conventional Viscous Glass Ionomer in Class I Cavities of Geriatric Patients: A 1-year Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.Contemporary clinical 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study was carried out as a prospective clinical field study with the aim of evaluating the clinical performance of Equia Fil® with a nanofilled resin coating and the conventional Fuji IX GP® fast with an LC coating according to the World Dental Federation (FDI) restoration material evaluation criteria.
methodsThe clinical performance of Equia Fil® and Fuji IX GP® fast was evaluated on permanent posterior teeth of 643 adult patients aged between 20 to 80 years old in randomly selected clinics across Germany. Occlusal cavities in posterior permanent teeth were restored with Equia Fil® with a nanofilled, light-cured resin coating (n = 515) and Fuji IX GP® fast with an LC coating (n = 486). Direct clinical assessment as well as photographic assessment and assessment of stone casts of the restorations were made at 1 year, 2 years, 3 years, and 4 years.
resultsIn 4 years, a total of 1001 fillings from both materials were placed by 111 dentists in 643 patients. Random slope models showed that the Equia filling system had overall lower odds of obtaining a delta event (material needs replacement) in comparison to Fuji IX GP® fast with an LC coating within all models. In both materials, filling size/surface was the most important component affecting the clinical performance of the materials. When measuring the odds of obtaining a delta event (material needs replacement), the odds ratios jumped to approximately 43 and 296 times for class II (two surfaces) and class II mesial-occlusal-distal (three surfaces) respectively in comparison to class I fillings.
conclusionBoth materials showed similar good overall performance in class I cavities; however, when including numbers from both class I and II fillings, the Equia system with a nanofilled resin coating showed better overall performance with fewer failures in all the follow-up intervals. Nonetheless, the percentage of unsatisfactory to poor fillings according to the FDI criteria was relatively high in two-surface class II fillings and higher in three-surface class II fillings for both materials.
trial registrationDeutsches Register Klinischer Studien (German Clinical Trials Register): DRKS00004220. ( www.germanctr.de ). Registration date: 6 Sept 2012.
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.