Trial reportClinical oral investigations2024
Sixty-month comperative evaluation of a glass hybrid restorative and a composite resin in non-carious cervical lesions of bruxist individuals.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. 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, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical performance of glass hybrid and short fiber-reinforced composite restorations in MIH-affected molars: A 60-month split-mouth randomized controlled trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Six-year survival and clinical performance of glass hybrid restorations following selective caries removal in teeth with molar incisor hypomineralization: a prospective cohort study.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
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
objectiveTo compare the clinical performance of a glass hybrid (GH) restorative and a nano-ceramic composite resin (CR) in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCLs) of bruxist individuals in a 60-month randomized clinical trial. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwenty-five bruxist candidates having NCCLs were recruited in this clinical study. The depth, height (cervico-incisal), width (mesio-distal), internal angles of the NCCLs, degree of tooth wear (TWI) and gingival index (GI) were measured. One hundred-and-forty-eight NCCLs were restored either with a GH restorative (Equia Forte Fil) or a CR (Ceram.X One Universal). Modified USPHS criteria was used to evaluate restorations after 1 week and 12, 24, 36 and 60 months. Pearson's Chi-Square, Fisher's Exact and Cochran Q tests were run for analysis. Survival rates of the restorations were compared with Kaplan-Meier analysis (p < 0.05).
resultsAfter 60 months, 97 restorations in 15 patients were examined. The recall rate was 60.0%. Retention rates were 73.5% for CR and 66.7% for GH. A total of 29 restorations were lost (13CR (26.5%), 16GH (33.3%)). There was not a significant difference between tested restoratives in retention (p = 0.464), marginal adaptation (p = 0.856) and marginal discoloration (p = 0.273). There was no relationship between internal angle, depth, height or width and retention of the GH or CR restorations (p > 0.05). The increase in retention loss and marginal discoloration of both restorations over time were significant (p < 0.001). Sensitivity or secondary caries were not detected after 60 months.
conclusionGH and nano-ceramic CR showed similar clinical performances in NCCLs after 60 months in patients with bruxism. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: After 60 months, CR and GH materials showed clinically acceptable performances in restoration of NCCLs in patients with bruxism.
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.