ArticleCureus2023
A Comparative Evaluation of Postoperative Sensitivity Between Cention-N and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement in Class V Cavity: An In Vivo Study.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Performance of composite-reinforced glass ionomer liners in class V restorations.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim This research aimed to assess and compare the postoperative sensitivity in class V cavity when restored with Cention-N and resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC). This study used the Schiff scale to assess sensitivity in the class V cavity. Materials and methods This was an in vivo study performed in the Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sharad Pawar Dental College and Hospital, Sawangi Meghe, Maharashtra. Patients included in this study were randomly selected from regular outpatient departments diagnosed with class V cavities and referred for restorative treatment. These patients were segregated into Group A and Group B. Demographic information, detailed history of any medical condition, dental history, any allergy related to resins, and another group of drugs were recorded. The in vivo study involved 36 patients, 18 in each group, who presented at Sharad Pawar Dental College and Hospital. Inform consent was taken from all patients. The subjects' responses were evaluated using a Schiff analog scale to assess postoperative sensitivity to an air blast stimulus. Results The study included all 36 patients aged between 18 and 40 years. All 36 patients were segregated into two distinct groups. Two groups of 18 patients in each group were restored with Cention-N and RMGIC in groups A and B, respectively. It was determined that RMGIC exhibits a relatively higher incidence of postoperative sensitivity than Cention-N. It was determined that the difference was statistically relevant. Conclusion Considering the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that RMGIC shows more postoperative sensitivity than other groups on the first, second, and seventh days. Thus, it is concluded that Cention-N can be a superior alternative to RMGIC.
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.