Trial reportClinical oral investigations2019
Randomized clinical trial of class II restoration in permanent teeth comparing ART with composite resin after 12 months.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2023Pooled it
- Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.Scientific reports · 2022Pooled it
- Efficacy of different in-office treatments for dentin hypersensitivity: randomized and parallel clinical trial.Brazilian dental journal · 2024Trial
- A prospective and randomized clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of ART restorations with high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement versus conventional restorations with resin composite in Class II cavities of permanent teeth: two-year follow-up.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2021Trial
- A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2019Trial
- Clinical assessment of marginal and bulk fractures and discoloration in posterior composite after 12 to 36 months: A retrospective study.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Article
- Clinical Evaluation of Chemically Cured Conventional Glass Ionomer after Light Emitting Diode Radiant Heat Enhancement: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Article
- 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
- Effect of the restorative technique on load-bearing capacity, cusp deflection, and stress distribution of endodontically-treated premolars with MOD restoration.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2019Article
- A 1-year comparative evaluation of clinical performance of conventional direct composite restoration technique with a novel "custom shield" technique in class I compound lesions - A randomized clinical study.Journal of conservative dentistry : JCDArticle
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study evaluated the effectiveness of class II restorations, in permanent teeth, through the ART technique in comparison to composite resin. MATERIALS AND
methodsParticipants (154), aged 8 to 19 years, with good general health, with class II cavities in permanent teeth, and without pulp involvement and tooth pain were included in this parallel and randomized clinical trial. The Ethics Committee approval number was CAAE: 24012913.0.1001.5417. Seventy-seven restorations were made with each restorative material (Equia Fil-GC Corporation and Z350-3M). Evaluations occurred at 6 and 12 months by the criteria of ART and the USPHS modified. Data were analyzed by Mann-Whitney, chi-square, Fisher's exact, chi-square tests with linear trend and logistic regression by enter method (p < 0.050). The Kaplan-Meier test evaluated the survival rates of the restorations. The log-rank test compared the survival curves.
resultsRegardless of the evaluation criteria used, the success rates of ART restorations were 98.7% (6 months) and 95.8% (12 months) and for composite resins were 100% (6 months) and 98.7% (12 months), with no statistical difference of restoration groups (p > 0.050). Survival rates for restorations, regardless of the evaluation criteria used, are the same as the success rates, with the exception of ART restorations at 12 months of follow-up (94.8%).
conclusionNo differences in the success rates of class II restorations of ART compared to resin composite, in permanent teeth, were observed after 12 months. CLINIC SIGNIFICANT: HVGIC can safely be used to restore proximal cavities in permanent teeth up to 12 months.
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.