Trial reportScientific reports2024
3-year randomized clinical trial to evaluate the performance of posterior composite restorations lined with ion-releasing materials.
Trial report in Scientific reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05470959 (Bioactive Ionic Resin Composite Versus Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cavity Liners), which is not on this map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Bioactive Ionic Resin Composite Versus Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cavity Liners: 2-Year Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of different cavity liners compared to no cavity lining in managing deep caries in vital permanent teeth - a systematic review.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical effectiveness of ion-releasing restorations compared to composite restorations in pediatric dental treatments: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Clinical Performance of Bulk-Fill Versus Incremental Composite Placement Approaches in Vital Posterior Teeth: A 24 Months Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Trial
- Clinical effectiveness of Er, Cr: YSGG laser compared with conventional rotary instrumentation for caries removal in primary teeth: a randomized split-mouth clinical trial.Lasers in medical science · 2026Trial
- Clinical evaluation of different bi-layer biomimetic strategies of composite resin in large class I cavities: an 18-month randomized clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Bioactive restorative materials in dentistry: a comprehensive review of mechanisms, clinical applications, and future directions.Odontology · 2026Review
- Influence of thickness and base material in class II restorations with nanofilled composites: finite element study.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Bioactive and Ion-releasing materials in minimum intervention dentistry: a clinical pathway from prevention to restorative treatment.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Suitability of Direct Resin Composites in Restoring Endodontically Treated Teeth (ETT).Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
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 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
To evaluate the impact of using ion-releasing liners on the 3-year clinical performance of posterior resin composite restorations after selective caries excavation with polymer burs. 20 patients were enrolled in this trial. Each patient had two deep carious lesions, one on each side of the mouth. After selective caries removal using polymer bur (PolyBur P1, Komet, Brasseler GmbH Co. KG, Lemgo, Germany), cavities were lined with bioactive ionic resin composite (Activa Bioactive Base/Liner, Pulpdent, Watertown, MA, USA) or resin-modified glass ionomer liner (Riva Light Cure, SDI, Bayswater, Victoria, Australia). All cavities were then restored with nanofilled resin composite (Filtek Z350XT, 3M Oral Care, St. Paul, MN, USA). All the tested materials were placed according to the manufacturers' instructions. Clinical evaluation was accomplished using World Dental Federation (FDI) criteria at baseline and after 6 months, 1, 2, and 3 years. Data were analyzed using Mann-whitney U and Friedman tests (p < 0.05). The success rates were 100% for all resin composite restorations either lined with ion-releasing resin composite or resin-modified glass ionomer liner. Mann-whitney U test revealed that there were no statistically significant differences between both ion-releasing lining material groups for all criteria during the follow-up periods (p > 0.05). Resin composite restorations showed acceptable clinical performance over 3 years either lined with bioactive ionic or resin-modified glass ionomer liners after selective caries excavation preserving pulp vitality. After the 3-year follow-up period, Activa Bioactive and Riva Light Cure liners were clinically effective and they exhibited with the overlying composite restorations successful clinical performance.Trial registration number: NCT05470959. Date of registration: 22/7/2022. Retrospectively registered.
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.