ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2020
Comparative Evaluation of Retention and Antibacterial Efficacy of Compomer and Glass Hybrid Bulk Fill Restorative Material as a Conservative Adhesive Restoration in Children with Mixed Dentition-An
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
AIM AND
objectiveTo compare and evaluate the retention along with antibacterial efficacy of colored compomer and glass hybrid bulk fill glass ionomer restorative material as a conservative adhesive restoration in children of age 6-12 years. MATERIALS AND
methodsSixty children were selected fulfilling the inclusion and exclusion criteria falling in the age group of 6-12 years with mixed dentition and two groups were formed: group I-colored compomer and group II-glass hybrid bulk fill material. Initially, oral prophylaxis was carried out and baseline collection of saliva was completed. Then, the restorative treatment was completed. Retention of the material and antibacterial count [colony-forming units (CFU)/mL of saliva] was estimated at 1, 3, and 6 months after the restorative procedure.
resultsIt was seen that retention rate with glass hybrid bulk fill group was 100%, whereas with colored compomer group it was 90% at end of 6 months. Although good antibacterial activity was shown by both the group at 1, 3, and 6 months follow-up but statistically significant drop was seen in the glass hybrid bulk fill group at 3-month intervals than the colored compomer group with a
conclusionAmong both the materials, glass hybrid bulk fill restorative material showed good retention compared to Colored compomer material but it was not statistically very significant. Also, both the materials have shown good antimicrobial activity at 1, 3, and 6 months follow-up. HOW TO CITE THIS ARTICLE: Mundada MV, Hugar SM, Hallikerimath S,
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.