Trial reportClinical oral investigations2020
Effect of cavity lining on the restoration of root surface carious lesions: a split-mouth, 5-year randomized controlled clinical trial.
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. It is linked to trial NCT03802539 (5-year Clinical Evaluation of Cavity Lining on the Restoration of Root Surface Caries Lesions), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
5-year Clinical Evaluation of Cavity Lining on the Restoration of Root Surface Caries Lesions: A Controlled Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Calcium silicate liner versus no liner in selective caries removal: a one-year randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- 24-Month clinical evaluation of cervical restorations bonded using radio-opaque universal adhesive compared to conventional universal adhesive in carious cervical lesions: A randomized clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- Adhesion and Surface Roughness of Apatite-Containing Carbomer and Improved Ionically Bioactive Resin Compared to Glass Ionomers.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the clinical performance of cavities with no lining and lining with resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGIC) for the treatment of root surface carious lesions. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study included 39 patients (mean age, 39.6 years) who visited the university hospital for the treatment of at least 2 root surface carious lesions. After caries removal, the depth, length, and height of the cavities were measured. Using a paired-tooth design and simple randomization technique, the cavities were assigned to one of two groups that were either unlined or lined with RMGIC (Glass Liner II). All cavities were restored with a nanohybrid resin-based composite (Clearfil Majesty Esthetic). One hundred restorations (50 lined, 50 unlined) were placed. Two examiners other than the operator blindly evaluated the restorations at the follow-ups according to the modified Havemann criteria for marginal adaptation, anatomic form, marginal staining, caries in the adjacent tooth structure, caries at the cavosurface margin, and tooth sensitivity. Chi-square, Fisher's exact, Mann-Whitney U, and Cochran Q tests were used for the analysis (p < 0.05).
resultsAt the 5-year follow-up, 12 restorations were failed. However, there was no significant difference between the marginal adaptation and marginal staining of the materials (p = 0.526 and p = 0.893, respectively). Four caries lesions were detected in the adjacent tooth structure and at the cavosurface margin at the 5-year assessment.
conclusionThere was no significant difference in the clinical performance of the lined and unlined restorations. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The clinical performance of both unlined and RMGIC-lined cavities at the 5-year post-restoration assessment was acceptable.
trial registrationNCT03802539.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31273529What 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.