Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38351604›Full record

SynthesisMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2024

Clinical Performance of Glass Ionomer Cement in Load-Bearing Restorations: A Systematic Review.

Laura Durrant, Mahdi Mutahar, Arwa A Daghrery, Nassreen H Albar, Ghadeer Saleh Alwadai, Saleh Ali Alqahtani, Laila Adel Al Dehailan, Naif Nabel Abogazalah, Nada Ahmad Alamoudi, Mohammed M Al Moaleem

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Effect of Titanium Dioxide (TiOMaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Review
  4. Review
  5. Observational
  6. Observational
  7. 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

10 authors.

Laura DurrantDental Academy, Niversity of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.ORCID 0009-0007-9569-7515
Mahdi MutaharDental Academy, Niversity of Portsmouth, Portsmouth, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-4036-5931
Arwa A DaghreryDepartment of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-8328-1818
Nassreen H AlbarDepartment of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-8163-4712
Ghadeer Saleh AlwadaiDepartment of Restorative Dental Science, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0001-9807-5315
Saleh Ali AlqahtaniDepartment of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-4017-1694
Laila Adel Al DehailanDepartment of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Imam Abdulrahman Bin Faisal University, Dammam, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-1240-7022
Naif Nabel AbogazalahDepartment of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0003-3343-9397
Nada Ahmad AlamoudiDepartment of Restorative Dental Science, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University,, Abha, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-2999-4913
Mohammed M Al MoaleemDepartment of Prosthetic Dental Science, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan, Saudi Arabia.ORCID 0000-0002-9623-261X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Glass ionomer cement (GIC) is a self-adhesive dental restorative material composed of a polyacrylic acid liquid and fluoro-aluminosilicate glass powder. It is commonly used for cementation during dental restoration. This study aimed to systematically review the existing literature regarding the clinical performance of GIC in load-bearing dental restorations. A comprehensive literature search was conducted in EBSCO, PubMed, Embrace, and Cochrane databases. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the search, and a broad search technique was used, where inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied. After a thorough evaluation, 12 RCTs were extensively reviewed, and whether GIC is suitable for load-bearing restorations was determined. Significant variations in staining surface or margin, color match, translucency, esthetic anatomical form, retention, material fracture, marginal adaptation, surface luster, occlusal contour, wear, and approximal anatomical form indicated the unsuitability of GIC. By contrast, significance differences in patient view and periodontal response indicated that GIC is suitable. No significant differences in postoperative sensitivity, recurrence of caries, or tooth integrity were observed. Nevertheless, the results of the review demonstrated that the clinical performance of GIC is comparable to that of traditional restorative materials with regard to the parameters analyzed. GIC is a suitable restorative material for load-bearing restorations regarding surface margin, esthetic anatomical form, material retention and fracture, marginal adaptation, occlusal contour, wear, and approximal anatomical form. It reduces other parameters, such as postoperative sensitivity, recurrence of caries, and tooth integrity.

Indexed as

Dental Restoration, PermanentGlass Ionomer CementsDental CariesHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicGlass Ionomer Cements

Identifiers

PMID38351604
PMCPMC10878495

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.