Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28000039›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2017

Clinical performance of a glass ionomer restorative system: a 6-year evaluation.

Sevil Gurgan, Zeynep Bilge Kutuk, Esra Ergin, Sema Seval Oztas, Filiz Yalcin Cakir

Registry-linked trialAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03822403 (Randomized, Controlled Clinical Evaluation of Glass Ionomer System vs Composite Posterior Restorations), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT03822403 nacompletednot on this map

Randomized, Controlled Clinical Evaluation of Glass Ionomer System vs Composite Posterior Restorations

TypeinterventionalSponsorHacettepe UniversityRan2009 to 2019Enrolled54ConditionsDental CariesArmsEQUIA, Gradia Direct Posterior
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Sesame Oil (International journal of dentistry · 2021
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Sevil GurganSchool of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Sihhiye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey.
Zeynep Bilge KutukSchool of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Sihhiye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey. dt.zeynepbilge@yahoo.com.
Esra ErginSchool of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Sihhiye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey.
Sema Seval OztasSchool of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Sihhiye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey.
Filiz Yalcin CakirSchool of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Sihhiye, 06100, Ankara, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this study is to evaluate the long-term clinical performance of a glass ionomer (GI) restorative system in the restoration of posterior teeth compared with a micro-filled hybrid posterior composite. MATERIALS AND

methodsA total of 140 (80 Cl1 and 60 Cl2) lesions in 59 patients were restored with a GI system (Equia) or a micro hybrid composite (Gradia Direct). Restorations were evaluated at baseline and yearly during 6 years according to the modified-USPHS criteria. Negative replicas at each recall were observed under SEM to evaluate surface characteristics. Data were analyzed with Cohcran's Q and McNemar's tests (p < 0.05).

resultsOne hundred fifteen (70 Cl1 and 45 Cl2) restorations were evaluated in 47 patients with a recall rate of 79.6% at 6 years. Significant differences were found in marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration for both restorative materials for Cl1 and Cl2 restorations (p < 0.05). However, none of the materials were superior to the other (p > 0.05). A significant decrease in color match was observed in Equia restorations (p < 0.05). Only one Cl2 Equia restoration was missing at 3 years and another one at 4 years. No failures were observed at 5 and 6 years. Both materials exhibited clinically successful performance after 6 years. SEM evaluations were in accordance with the clinical findings.

conclusionsBoth materials showed a good clinical performance for the restoration of posterior teeth during the 6-year evaluation. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The clinical effectiveness of Equia and Gradia Direct Posterior was acceptable in Cl1 and Cl2 cavities subsequent to 6-year evaluation.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultColorComposite ResinsDental CariesDental Marginal AdaptationDental MaterialsDental Restoration FailureDental Restoration, PermanentFemaleGlass Ionomer CementsHumansMaleMicroscopy, Electron, ScanningSurface PropertiesComposite ResinsDental MaterialsGlass Ionomer CementsGradiaClinical performanceComposite resinGlass ionomer cementPosterior teeth

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.