Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34046871›Full record

SynthesisEuropean archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry2021

Tooth-coloured materials for class II restorations in primary molars: systematic review and meta-analysis.

V Siokis, T Michailidis, N Kotsanos

Erratum issuedAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Glass hybrid versus resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class II restorations of primary molars: a 24 months randomised clinical trial.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2026
    Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Açaí juice stains a glazed resin-modified glass-ionomer cement.Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL · 2024
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

V SiokisDepartment of Paediatric Dentistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece. vasileios.siokis@yahoo.com.
T MichailidisMedical School, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
N KotsanosDepartment of Paediatric Dentistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Aristotle University of Thessaloniki · GR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this systematic review was to compare the success rate of five tooth-coloured materials, namely Glass Ionomer (GI), Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer (RMGI), Composite Resin (CR), Polyacid-Modified Composite Resin or Compomer (CO) and High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer (HVGI) in primary molar Class II restorations.

methodsFive databases were searched from inception to April 23, 2020 for randomized clinical trials comparing the failure rate of these materials. After duplicate study removal, data extraction and risk of bias assessment with the Cochrane tool, data synthesis was conducted, comparing all five tooth-coloured materials in pairs and computing the overall success rate for each one, respectively.

resultsA total of 5615 articles were obtained by electronic and hand literature search. After the application of the eligibility criteria, ten RCTs were included in this systematic review and six RCTs for meta-analysis. Their risk of bias was assessed to be high to moderate. Due to the small number of RCTs comparing the five restorative materials in pairs investigated in the same study, only three MAs were available for heterogeneity assessment. These were: (1) between CO-RMGI (RR 1.04 [0.59, 1.84]; p = 0.88; I

conclusionCR, RMGI and CO presented no statistical differences. In comparison to other tooth-coloured materials, studies on GI were too few to allow recommendations about its use. More studies on HGVI are needed for evidence-based recommendations to be made. The evidence extracted from this meta-analysis was not strong enough (moderate), due to the small number of RCTs and the risk of bias ranging from high to moderate. More, well-designed RCTs comparing tooth-coloured materials for primary molar Class II restorations are necessary.

Indexed as

Dental Restoration, PermanentGlass Ionomer CementsCompomersComposite ResinsHumansMolarTooth, DeciduousCompomersComposite ResinsGlass Ionomer CementsClass II restorationsFailure rateMeta-analysisPrimary molarsSystematic reviewTooth-coloured materials

Identifiers

PMID34046871
OpenAlexW3165779176

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.