Trial reportJournal of applied oral science : revista FOB2020
One-year evaluation of a new restorative glass ionomer cement for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions in patients with systemic diseases: a randomized, clinical trial.
Trial report in Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 12 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2023Pooled it
- Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.Scientific reports · 2022Pooled it
- Three-year evaluation of different adhesion strategies in non-carious cervical lesion restorations: a randomized clinical trial.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2021Trial
- The development of resin-coating materials for enhancing elemental release of coated glass ionomer cements.Heliyon · 2024Article
- Clinical Effectiveness of Ion-Releasing Restorations versus Composite Restorations in Dental Restorations: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Dentistry journal · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis randomized and clinical trial aimed to evaluate the performance of a new restorative Glass Ionomer Cement (GIC) for the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) of patients with systemic diseases compared with a posterior resin composite after 12 months. METHODOLOGY: 134 restorations were placed at 30 patients presenting systemic diseases by a single clinician. NCCLs were allocated to two groups according to restorative system used: a conventional restorative GIC [Fuji Bulk (GC, Tokyo Japan) (FB)] and a posterior resin composite [G-ænial Posterior (GC, Tokyo Japan) (GP)] used with a universal adhesive using etch&rinse mode. All restorative procedures were conducted according to manufacturer's instructions. Restorations were scored regarding retention, marginal discoloration, marginal adaptation, secondary caries, surface texture, and post-operative sensitivity using modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria after 1 week (baseline), 6, and 12 months. Descriptive statistics were performed using chi-square tests. Cochran Q and Mc Nemar's tests were used to detect differences over time.
resultsAfter 12 months, recall rate was 93% and the rates of cumulative retention failure for FB and GP were 4.9% and 1.6% respectively. Both groups presented similar alpha rates for marginal adaptation (FB 86.2%, GP 95.5%) and marginal discoloration (FB 93.8%, GP 97%) at 6-month recall, but FB restorations showed higher bravo scores than GP restorations for marginal adaptation and marginal discoloration after 12 months (p<0.05). Regarding surface texture, 2 FB restorations (3.1%) were scored as bravo after 6 months. All restorations were scored as alpha for secondary caries and postoperative sensitivity after 12 months.
conclusionAlthough the posterior resin composite demonstrated clinically higher alpha scores than the conventional GIC for marginal adaptation and discoloration, both materials successfully restored NCCLs at patients with systematic disease after a year. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Due to its acceptable clinical results, the tested conventional restorative GIC can be used for the restoration of NCCLs of patients with systemic diseases.
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.