Trial reportJournal of applied oral science : revista FOB2018
Randomized clinical trial of encapsulated and hand-mixed glass-ionomer ART restorations: one-year follow-up.
Trial report in Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04619264 (Impact of Minimally Invasive Restorative Techniques on Pregnant Women Oral Health Related Quality of Life), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 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.
Impact of Minimally Invasive Restorative Techniques on Pregnant Women Oral Health Related Quality of Life: a Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.
- 2-year survival and cost analysis of occlusoproximal ART restorations using encapsulated glass ionomer cement in primary molars: a randomized controlled trial.BMC oral health · 2024Trial
- Survival rate of primary molar restorations is not influenced by hand mixed or encapsulated GIC: 24 months RCT.BMC oral health · 2021Trial
- Comparison of two minimally invasive restorative techniques in improving the oral health-related quality of life of pregnant women: a six months randomized controlled trial.BMC oral health · 2021Trial
- The impact of minimally invasive restorative techniques on perception of dental pain among pregnant women: a randomized controlled clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2021Trial
- Does the liner material influence pulpal vitality in deep carious cavities submitted to selective caries removal? A network meta-analysis review.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Review
- Enhancement of fluoride release in glass ionomer cements modified with titanium dioxide nanoparticles.Medicine · 2022Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Marginal Integrity of Three Esthetic Restorative Materials - AnContemporary 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
5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This prospective, randomized, split-mouth clinical trial evaluated the clinical performance of conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC; Riva Self-Cure, SDI), supplied in capsules or in powder/liquid kits and placed in Class I cavities in permanent molars by the Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach. A total of 80 restorations were randomly placed in 40 patients aged 11-15 years. Each patient received one restoration with each type of GIC. The restorations were evaluated after periods of 15 days (baseline), 6 months, and 1 year, according to ART criteria. Wilcoxon matched pairs, multivariate logistic regression, and Gehan-Wilcoxon tests were used for statistical analysis. Patients were evaluated after 15 days (n=40), 6 months (n=34), and 1 year (n=29). Encapsulated GICs showed significantly superior clinical performance compared with hand-mixed GICs at baseline (p=0.017), 6 months (p=0.001), and 1 year (p=0.026). For hand-mixed GIC, a statistically significant difference was only observed over the period of baseline to 1 year (p=0.001). Encapsulated GIC presented statistically significant differences for the following periods: 6 months to 1 year (p=0.028) and baseline to 1 year (p=0.002). Encapsulated GIC presented superior cumulative survival rate than hand-mixed GIC over one year. Importantly, both GICs exhibited decreased survival over time. Encapsulated GIC promoted better ART performance, with an annual failure rate of 24%; in contrast, hand-mixed GIC demonstrated a failure rate of 42%.
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.