Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35657403›Full record

SynthesisSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2022

Effectiveness of glass ionomer cements in the restorative treatment of radiation-related caries - a systematic review.

Jullyana Mayara P Dezanetti, Bruna Luiza Nascimento, Juliana S R Orsi, Evelise M Souza

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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. Damage of irradiated teeth by ultrasonic scaling: an in vitro study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

4 authors.

Jullyana Mayara P DezanettiGraduation Program in Dentistry, School of Medicine and Life Sciences, Pontifícia Universidade Católica Do Paraná, 1155 Imaculada Conceição, Curitiba, PE, 80215-901, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6912-1164
Bruna Luiza NascimentoGraduation Program in Dentistry, School of Medicine and Life Sciences, Pontifícia Universidade Católica Do Paraná, 1155 Imaculada Conceição, Curitiba, PE, 80215-901, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9511-8946
Juliana S R OrsiGraduation Program in Dentistry, School of Medicine and Life Sciences, Pontifícia Universidade Católica Do Paraná, 1155 Imaculada Conceição, Curitiba, PE, 80215-901, Brazil.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7056-7422
Evelise M SouzaGraduation Program in Dentistry, School of Medicine and Life Sciences, Pontifícia Universidade Católica Do Paraná, 1155 Imaculada Conceição, Curitiba, PE, 80215-901, Brazil. evelise.souza@pucpr.br.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7490-4868

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeThe aim of this systematic review was to investigate the clinical effectiveness of glass ionomer cements (GICs) compared to other restorative materials in the treatment of radiation-related caries.

methodsTwo independent researchers searched literature databases (PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Lilacs/BBO) and the grey literature to identify clinical trials that compared GICs with other restorative materials for the treatment of radiation-related caries. The clinical criteria considered for the performance of the restorations were based on the parameters of marginal adaptation/anatomical form, secondary caries, retention, and cumulative failures of the restorations. The methodological quality and risk of bias were evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration tool.

resultsFrom a total of 511, only four articles fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Conventional GIC restorations presented higher marginal adaptation failures than the resin-modified glass ionomer cements (RM-GICs) and composite restorations in all of the follow-up periods. Secondary caries was not observed in conventional GIC restorations throughout the follow-up periods, in three out of four of the included studies. RM-GICs and composite restorations showed significantly lower cumulative failure rates than conventional GICs at 6-, 12-, and 18-month follow-ups.

conclusionDue to insufficient scientific evidence, it was not possible to conclude that GICs are more effective than other restorative materials for the treatment of radiation-related caries.

Indexed as

Dental CariesGlass Ionomer CementsComposite ResinsDatabases, FactualHumansTreatment OutcomeComposite ResinsGlass Ionomer CementsComposite resinGlass ionomer cementsPermanent dental restorationRadiation-related caries

Identifiers

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.