ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2020
ART with high viscosity GIC and composite restorations in class II cavities: can they thrive in the post-amalgam era?
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2023Pooled it
- Twelve-month evaluation of the atraumatic restorative treatment approach for class III restorations: An interventional study.World journal of clinical cases · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Design This study is a parallel group randomised un-blinded trial with equal allocation to evaluate and compare the success of ART with HVGIC and composite restorations in class II cavities in permanent molars. Study population The study populations included 154 participants who were selected from 17 different schools of Bauru and adjoining areas in Sao Paulo, Brazil. Children with good general and oral health and having 1 or 2 class II cavities were chosen. Only one restoration per child which exhibited good occlusal contact was finally chosen for the purpose of study. The participants were then stratified as per DMFT-score and cavity size. After stratifying the participants in four conglomerates, they were randomly allocated to either ART with HVGIC or composite restoration group. Later, the participants were recalled at 6 and 12 months and the restorations were evaluated using ART and modified-USPHS criteria. Data analysis Frequency statistics, which included chi square, chi square for trend and Fisher's exact test, were used for determining the association between restoration type and different baseline variables and for determining the association between distribution of scores obtained with ART and composite restorations for different evaluation criteria. Results With ART criteria, success rates of ART and composite restoration were found to be 98.7% and 100% at 6 months while at 12 months the success rates were observed to be 98.7% and 95.8%, respectively. The distribution of scores at both the time periods was found to be statistically significant (p = 0.033). Same success rates were observed when the restorations were evaluated using modified-USPHS criteria, with statistical difference at the 6 month post-operative recall (p = 0.001), and non-significant difference at the 12 month recall visit (p = 0.310). Survival rates of ART and composite restoration were observed to be 94.8% and 98.7% with no-significant difference in the survival curves (p = 0.173)Conclusions In class II cavities in permanent molars, ART restorations with high viscosity GIC, done in a school setting exhibited similar success rates as composite restoration done in a clinical setting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32221490What 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.