Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36357453›Full record

SynthesisScientific reports2022

Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Eman H Albelasy, Hamdi H Hamama, Hooi Pin Chew, Marmar Montaser, Salah H Mahmoud

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Clinical effectiveness of pit and fissure sealants in primary and permanent teeth of children and adolescents: an umbrella review.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2024
    Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
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

5 authors.

Eman H AlbelasyConservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Algomhoria Street, Mansoura, Aldakhlia, 35516, Egypt.
Hamdi H HamamaConservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Algomhoria Street, Mansoura, Aldakhlia, 35516, Egypt. hamdy_hosny@mans.edu.eg.
Hooi Pin ChewMinnesota Dental Research Centre for Biomaterials and Biomechanics, School of Dentistry, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, 55455, USA.
Marmar MontaserConservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Algomhoria Street, Mansoura, Aldakhlia, 35516, Egypt.
Salah H MahmoudConservative Dentistry Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Mansoura University, Algomhoria Street, Mansoura, Aldakhlia, 35516, Egypt.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This systematic review was aimed to evaluate occurrence of secondary caries and marginal adaptation in ion-releasing materials versus resin composite. Electronic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Open Grey databases with no date or language restrictions until May 21st, 2021, was conducted. Randomized clinical trials that compared ion-releasing restorations versus resin composite were included. For quantitative analysis, a random-effects meta-analysis with risk difference as an effect measure and a 95% confidence interval was used. Quality of evidence was assessed using The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation criteria. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochran Collaboration Risk of Bias tool. The inclusion criteria were met by 22 studies, and 10 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Three follow-up periods (1 year, 18 months-2 years, and 3 years) were evaluated. The overall quality of evidence for secondary caries and marginal adaptation outcomes was low. The results of the meta-analysis showed no significant difference (p > 0.05) in both outcomes between ion-releasing materials and resin composite. The occurrence of secondary caries was not dependent on the nature of the restorative material. It is more likely a complex process that involves the same risk factors as primary carious lesions.

Indexed as

Composite ResinsDental CariesBiasDental CareDental Restoration, PermanentHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicComposite Resins

Identifiers

PMID36357453
PMCPMC9649593

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.