ArticleClinical oral investigations2020
Human pulp response to conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements applied in very deep cavities.
Article 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.
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, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical evaluation of SonicFill bulk resin technique in the restoration of proximal deep caries of primary molars: a two-year randomized controlled trial.BMC oral health · 2024Trial
- The Role of Neuropeptide Y in Dental Pulp: Balancing Neurogenic Inflammation and Pain Modulation.International endodontic journal · 2026Review
- Advanced Dental Composite Technology via Bisilanized Dual-Action Nanofillers for Biofilm Control.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Cellular senescence in the dental pulp and its implications for endodontics: a scoping review.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Influence of Gold Nanoparticle Incorporation Into Glass Ionomer Cement on Fibroblast Metabolic Activity, Surface Roughness and Hardness.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Updates on the clinical application of glass ionomer cement in restorative and preventive dentistry.Journal of dental sciences · 2024Review
- Comparative evaluation of the biological response of conventional and resin modified glass ionomer cement on human cells: a systematic review.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2024Review
- Histological Evaluation of Polyacid-Modified Composite Resin and Conventional Composite Resin Used for Primary Molars Restoration.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- Evaluation of setting kinetics, mechanical strength, ion release, and cytotoxicity of high-strength glass ionomer cement contained elastomeric micelles.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- The role of protective liners and glass ionomer in managing pulp temperature during light curing.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2024Article
- Comparing cytocompatibility of two fluoride-containing solutions and two resin-based restorative materials-a pilot study.Frontiers in oral health · 2024Article
- Bond Strength of Self-Adhesive Flowable Composites and Glass Ionomer Cements to Primary Teeth: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vitro Studies.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Evaluation of pulpal response at varying remaining dentin thickness in teeth restored with resin bulk fill composite, conventional glass ionomer cement and silver amalgam: Histomorphometric analysis.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
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 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThis study assessed the human pulp response after adhesive restoration of cavities by indirect pulp capping with a conventional or a resin-modified glass ionomer cement. MATERIALS AND
methodsDeep cavities prepared in 26 human premolars were lined with Riva Light Cure (Riva LC), Riva Self Cure (Riva SC), or Dycal, and then restored with composite resin. Four teeth were used as intact control. After time intervals of 7 or 30 days, the teeth were extracted, processed for histological evaluation of the pulp, and the remaining dentin thickness (RDT) between the cavity floor and the pulp was measured.
resultsAt 7 days, a slight pulp inflammation associated with discrete tissue disorganization was observed in most of t the teeth lined with Riva LC and Riva SC. Moderate pulp inflammation occurred in one tooth lined with Riva LC. Bacteria were identified in one specimen of the same group that exhibited no pulp damage. At 30 days, slight pulp inflammation and discrete tissue disorganization persisted in two specimens treated with Riva LC, in which a thin layer of tertiary dentin was deposited. Mean RDTs ranged from 383.0 to 447.8 μm.
conclusionsRiva LC produced more damage to the pulp than Riva SC. However, the initial pulp damage decreased over time and after 30 days both GICs were labeled as biocompatible. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: In this study conducted with human teeth, the conventional and the resin-modified glass ionomer cements investigated were shown not to cause post-operative sensitivity or persistent pulp damage when applied as liners in very deep cavities, thereby indicating their biocompatibility.
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.