Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32902766›Full record

Trial reportOdontology2021

Clinical comparison of a micro-hybride resin-based composite and resin modified glass ionomer in the treatment of cervical caries lesions: 36-month, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial.

Uzay Koc Vural, Leyla Kerimova, Arlin Kiremitci

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Odontology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05614076 (Clinical Performance Of Conserved Chalky White Demineralized Enamel Cavity Margins Versus Totally Removed Carious Margins In Class V Cavities Restored With Composite Resin), which is not on this map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT05614076 naunknown statusnot on this map

Clinical Performance Of Conserved Chalky White Demineralized Enamel Cavity Margins Versus Totally Removed Carious Margins In Class V Cavities Restored With Composite Resin

TypeinterventionalSponsorCairo UniversityRan2021 to 2023Enrolled34ConditionsClass V Dental CariesArmsconserved chalky white enamel margins of class V cavities, Total removal of demineralized enamel margins of class V cavities
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Review
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

3 authors.

Uzay Koc VuralDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Sıhhıye, Ankara, 06100, Turkey. uzay.koc@hacettepe.edu.tr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8764-2174
Leyla KerimovaDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Baskent University, Ankara, Turkey.
Arlin KiremitciDepartment of Restorative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Hacettepe University, Sıhhıye, Ankara, 06100, Turkey.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of the study was to compare the 36-month clinical performances of a micro-hybride resin based composites (RBC) and a type II resin modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) in the treatment of cervical caries lesions.

methodsThirty-three patients (23 females,  10 males) with at least two cervical caries lesions participated in this study. A total of 110 restorations were randomly placed, half using RBC (Spectrum TPH3, Dentsply Sirona) with respective adhesive system (Prime & Bond NT, Dentsply Sirona) the other half using the RMGIC (Riva Light Cure, SDI, Bayswater, Victoria, Australia). Restorations were assessed at baseline, and after 6, 12, 18, 24 and 36 months using modified USPHS criteria. The data were analyzed statistically (p < 0.05).

resultsRecall rate was 90.91% at 36 months. Of the RBC lesions 84.3% (n = 43) and of the RMGIC restorations 92.2% (n = 47) were fully retained at 36 months. There was no significant difference between two materials in terms of retention and marginal adaptation (p > 0.05). No relation was found between caries activity, cavity dimensions and marginal adaptation (p > 0.05) but RMGIC restorations showed significantly more discoloration than RBC restorations after 36 months (p < 0.001).

conclusionsConsidering the middle-term outcomes, both materials showed clinically successful performance in the treatment of cervical caries lesions.

Indexed as

Dental CariesRoot CariesAcrylic ResinsComposite ResinsDental Marginal AdaptationDental Restoration, PermanentFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGlass Ionomer CementsHumansMaleMouthResin CementsSilicon DioxideAcrylic ResinsComposite Resinsglass ionomerGlass Ionomer CementsResin CementsSilicon DioxideCervical caries lesionGlass ionomer cementsRandomized controlled clinical trialResin-based compositesRoot cariesSplit-mouth study

Identifiers

PMID32902766

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.