Trial reportClinical oral investigations2020
Twenty-four-month clinical performance of a glass hybrid restorative in non-carious cervical lesions of patients with bruxism: a split-mouth, randomized 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. Cited by 13 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Do bioactive materials show greater retention rates in restoring permanent teeth than non-bioactive materials? A systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Clinical oral investigations · 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
- Wear performance of different bulk-fill class II resin composite restorations: 3-year clinical evaluation.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Sixty-month comperative evaluation of a glass hybrid restorative and a composite resin in non-carious cervical lesions of bruxist individuals.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Trial
- One-year evaluation of a new restorative glass ionomer cement for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions in patients with systemic diseases: a randomized, clinical trial.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2020Trial
- Microtensile bond strength of high-viscosity glass ionomer cements and nanoceramic composite to normal and caries-affected dentin: AnJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Evaluation of bioactive restorative materials on cell viability using direct and extract methods.Brazilian oral research · 2026Article
- Stereomicroscopic Aspects of Non-Carious Cervical Lesions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Article
- Morphological and Optical Coherence Tomography Aspects of Non-Carious Cervical Lesions.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Fracture Behavior and Integrity of Different Direct Restorative Materials to Restore Noncarious Cervical Lesions.Polymers · 2021Article
- 36 Months' Clinical Performance of Primary Incisors Restorations Depending on the Type of Restorative Technique Used: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Dentistry journal · 2021Article
- [Evaluation of wear property of Giomer and universal compositeBeijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of the present study was to evaluate the clinical performance of a glass hybrid restorative compared with a nano-ceramic composite resin in non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) of patients with bruxism. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-five patients with NCCLs and bruxism were enrolled in the present study. Before treatment, the dimensions of the NCCLs (depth, cervico-incisal height, and mesio-distal width) and internal angles were measured. Degree of tooth wear (TWI) and gingival conditions were recorded. A total of 148 NCCLs were randomly restored with a glass hybrid restorative system (GH) (Equia Forte Fil, GC, Tokyo, Japan) or a nano-ceramic composite resin (RBC) (Ceram.X One Universal, Dentsply, DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany). The restorations were evaluated at baseline and after 6, 12, and 24 months according to the modified USPHS criteria. Data were analyzed with Pearson's chi-square, Fisher's exact, Mann-Whitney U, and Cochran's Q tests (P < 0.05).
resultsAt the 24-month recall, 126 restorations in 22 patients were evaluated. The recall rate was 88.0%. No significant difference was found between the materials for retention (P = 0.285), and no relationships were found between internal angle, depth, cervico-incisal height, or mesio-distal width and retention of the restorations (P > 0.05). A significant difference was observed between the materials for marginal adaptation (P = 0.002), but no relationships were found among depth, cervico-incisal height, and mesio-distal width and marginal adaptation (P > 0.05). RBC showed better results for marginal adaptation. Between marginal adaptation, TWI, and the gingival index, correlations were significant (P < 0.001, P = 0.002). A significant change was found in marginal discoloration in GH and RBC over time (P = 0.039 and P = 0.004, respectively). Neither secondary caries nor tooth sensitivity was observed on any of the restorations at any evaluation.
conclusionAlthough nano-ceramic RBC showed better marginal adaptation than GH, both tested restoratives showed clinically acceptable performance for the restoration of NCCLs of patients with bruxism after 24 months of clinical service.
trial registrationThis study is registered on http://clinicaltrials.gov under protocol record KA-16020, Clinical Performance of a Glass Hybrid Restorative in NCCL's of Patients With Bruxism.
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.