Trial reportClinical oral investigations2020
Longevity of posterior composite and compomer restorations in children placed under different types of anesthesia: a retrospective 5-year study.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Incidence of restoration failure and its etiology: A retrospective study.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025Article
- Effect of Beveling Large Class II Cavities on the Enamel Marginal Quality of Direct Resin-Based Restorations.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Alternative Direct Restorative Materials for Dental Amalgam: A Concise Review Based on an FDI Policy Statement.International dental journal · 2024Review
- Retrospective Cohort Study on Potential Risk Factors for Repeated Need of Dental Rehabilitation under General Anesthesia in a Private Pediatric Dental Practice.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- The light-curing unit: An essential piece of dental equipment.International dental journal · 2020Article
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 at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aims of this study were (i) to assess cumulative survival rates of class II resin-based composite and compomer restorations in primary molars with a 5-year observation period and (ii) to analyze the influence of different types of anesthesia and different localizations of the restorations in the teeth.
methodsPatient charts of a private practice for pediatric dentistry were screened for class II resin-based composite (Spectrum TPH3) and compomer (Dyract Posterior; both Dentsply DeTrey) restorations in primary molars with a 5-year observation period used with Adper Prompt L-Pop (3M-ESPE). One restoration per patient (age ≤ 6 years at placement) was randomly selected.
resultsTwo hundred sixty restorations were included (43% resin-based composites, 57% compomers). After 5 years, cumulative survival rates were 43% for resin-based composite and 49% for compomer restorations with no statistically significant differences. There was a tendency for higher survival rates for restorations placed under N
conclusionWithin the limitations of the study, we conclude that type of restorative material as well as the type of anesthesia do not influence restoration survival rates, although restorations placed in patients receiving N CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Resin-based composite and compomer restorations show similar survival rates of more than 43% (annual failure rates less than 11.5%) after 5 years for restoration of primary molars.
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.