ArticleDentistry journal2023
Retrospective Clinical Evaluation of RMGIC/GIC Class V Restorations.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical performance and cost-effectiveness of low-shrinkage giomer resin composite versus resin-modified glass ionomer in cervical carious lesions: a 12-month randomized controlled trial.BMC oral health · 2025Trial
- The influence of incorporation of hydroxyapatite/collagen nanocomposite into glass ionomer cement on surface roughness, microhardness, and fluoride-ion release potential.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Clinical evaluation of giomer-based injectable resin composite versus resin-modified glass ionomer in class V carious lesions over 18 months: A randomized clinical trial.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical performance of glass-ionomer cement (GIC) and resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) materials in Class V carious cervical lesions restored by dental students. Ninety-six (96) restorations performed with either GIC (Fuji IX) (n = 39) or RMGIC (Fuji II LC) (n = 57) were evaluated using the modified USPHS criteria by two independent investigators at two follow-up evaluations (two years apart). The Fisher statistical test was used to compare USPHS criteria and examine significant differences, with a significance level set at
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.