Trial reportEuropean archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry2018
Comparison of resin modified glass ionomer cement and composite resin in class II primary molar restorations: a 2-year parallel randomised clinical trial.
Trial report in European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 5 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical effectiveness of ion-releasing restorations compared to composite restorations in pediatric dental treatments: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2025Pooled 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
- Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a systematic review.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2022Pooled it
- Tooth-coloured materials for class II restorations in primary molars: systematic review and meta-analysis.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2021Pooled it
- Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis.Scientific reports · 2020Pooled it
- Glass hybrid versus resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class II restorations of primary molars: a 24 months randomised clinical trial.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026Trial
- Long-term clinical comparison of a resin-based composite and resin modified glass ionomer in the treatment of cervical caries lesions.Odontology · 2025Trial
- Review
- A Critical Review on the Factors Affecting the Bond Strength of Direct Restorative Material Alternatives to Amalgam.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Dental treatment outcomes in Thai children treated for severe early-childhood caries under general anaesthesia and non-pharmacological behaviour management: a retrospective study.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2024Article
- Diagnosis and Assessment of Dental Caries Using Novel Bioactive Caries Detecting Dye Solution.Biomedicines · 2023Article
- Clinical Effectiveness of Restorative Materials for the Restoration of Carious Primary Teeth: An Umbrella Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2022Review
- Comparison of marginal microleakage of metal copings cemented with three luting cements.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2022Article
- Three-year performance of a nano-filled resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class II primary molar restorations.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare the 2-year success rates of a Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement (RMGIC) with a composite resin in class II primary molar restorations.
methodsHealthy, cooperative children aged 4-7.5 years with at least one carious primary molar requiring a class II restoration were included in this parallel randomised trial and allocated on a 1:1 basis to composite resin (Z250, 3M ESPE) or RMGIC (Vitremer, 3M ESPE). Restorations were assessed semiannually up to 2 years clinically and radiographically using modified United States Public Health Service criteria, with the primary outcome being all-cause failure. Data were analysed per protocol by binomial linear regression with Relative Risks (RR) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI).
results55 patients were randomly allocated to either group and 44 analysed at 2 years; with 49 teeth in the Z250 and 55 teeth in the Vitremer group. The all-cause failure rate for both materials was 3% after 1 year (4 and 2% for Z250 and Vitremer, respectively) and 16% after 2 years (16% for both Z250 and Vitremer). Overall, no difference between materials could be found at 2 years (RR = 1.4; 95% CI 0.8, 2.4; P = 0.30). However, Vitremer was associated with more favourable gingival health compared to composite (RR = 0.2; 95% CI 0.1, 0.9; P = 0.03), but also occlusal wear, which was observed exclusively for Vitremer.
conclusionNo significant difference was found in the overall performance of the two materials, making them suitable for class II primary molar restorations, although RMGIC presented more pronounced occlusal wear of limited clinical importance after 2 years.
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.