SynthesisEuropean archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry2022
Does the addition of chlorhexidine to glass ionomer cements influence its antimicrobial effect and survival rate? A systematic review.
Synthesis in European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Mapping Systematic Reviews on the Management of Dental Caries in Primary Teeth: A Meta-research.Current pediatric reviews · 2026Pooled it
- Impact of integrated quaternary ammonium compounds in conventional glass-ionomers on cariogenic oral microflora: An in vitro analysis.Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects · 2025Article
- Improving glass Ionomer performance through plant extracts: a systematic review ofBiomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2025Review
- Organic antibacterial modifications of high-viscosity glass ionomer cement for atraumatic restorative treatment: A review.The Japanese dental science review · 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
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the influence of the addition of chlorhexidine on the antimicrobial effect and on the survival of restorations performed with glass ionomer cement.
methodsNine databases were used to search for randomized clinical trials that compared the survival rate and the antimicrobial effect of glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations with and without the incorporation of chlorhexidine (CHX), without restrictions on year or language. Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias 2 was used to assess the risk of bias. The GRADE approach was used to assess the certainty of evidence.
resultsFrom 593 studies found, seven met the inclusion criteria. The concentration of CHX varied between 0.5 and 2%. In general, the addition of CHX to GIC promoted reductions in Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus acidophilus burdens when compared to those without CHX. No study showed a difference in the survival of restorations between GIC with CHX and conventional GIC. Individual risk of bias varied from low to high and the certainty of evidence was classified as very low.
conclusionsBased on a very low level of certainty, the evidence suggests that the incorporation of CHX in GIC might improve the antimicrobial effects for a short time, in addition to having little influence on the survival of the restoration.
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.