Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31297658›Full record

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.

Uzay Koc Vural, Ece Meral, Esra Ergin, Sevil Gürgan

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 22 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Stereomicroscopic Aspects of Non-Carious Cervical Lesions.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. [Evaluation of wear property of Giomer and universal compositeBeijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2020
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Uzay Koc VuralSchool of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Hacettepe University, 06100, Altındag Ankara, Turkey. uzaykoc@gmail.com.
Ece MeralSchool of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Hacettepe University, 06100, Altındag Ankara, Turkey.
Esra ErginSchool of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Hacettepe University, 06100, Altındag Ankara, Turkey.
Sevil GürganSchool of Dentistry, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Hacettepe University, 06100, Altındag Ankara, Turkey.
Hacettepe University · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

BruxismDental MaterialsDental Restoration, PermanentGlassAdultCeramicsComposite ResinsDouble-Blind MethodFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHumansMaleMiddle AgedComposite ResinsDental MaterialsBruxismClass VGlass hybrid restorativeNano-ceramic composite resinNCCL

Identifiers

PMID31297658
OpenAlexW2957540019

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.