ReviewClinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry2020
Cavity Bases Revisited.
Review in Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Indirect Pulp Capping Materials On Regional Dentin Seal.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2025Article
- The Outcome of Old-School Indirect Pulp Capping over 40 Years: A Practice-Based Retrospective Evaluation.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- Shear bond strength of calcium silicate-based cements to glass ionomers.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- The effect of different pulp capping methods on the intrapulpal temperature when using light-cured procedures.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2022Article
- Effect of Bioinductive Cavity Liners on Shear Bond Strength of Dental Composite to Dentin.BioMed research international · 2022Article
- Light-cured calcium hydroxide cements release of calcium ions using argon based induction coupled mass spectroscopy - anMedical gas 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
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this paper was to review the current literature on cavity bases while focusing on the role of zinc oxide eugenol (ZOE) and resin-modified glass ionomers (RMGI) as cavity bases. MATERIALS AND
methodsA thorough literature search between 1970 and 2020 was done using Scopus, PubMed, and Google Scholar databases. The keywords of the search strategy were as below: cavity liners and bases, pulp protection, zinc oxide eugenol, and resin-modified glass ionomer. No specific inclusion or exclusion criteria were applied as to what articles would be included in this review.
conclusionThis review emphasizes that the available literature provides very little evidence to support the routine use of a base under amalgam or composite restorations. This review favors the adoption of "no more lining or bases" in shallow and moderate cavity preparations. However, an exception might be a "protective base" of RMGI following the application of calcium hydroxide (CH) liners in deep cavities. Bonded RMGIs are suitable cavity base materials and should always replace zinc oxide eugenol bases in daily practice.
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.