Trial reportMedicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal2024
In vivo study of the behavior of glass ionomer restorations in patients with special needs.
Trial report in Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Bioactivity of Glass Carbomer Versus Conventional GICs in Sound Enamel and Dentine: A 12-Month SEM-EDS Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGlass ionomers may be a good alternative to composite resin restorations in special needs patients with challenging behaviours. The present study was carried out to evaluate the restorative efficacy of glass ionomer in the occlusal cavities of permanent molars among patients with special needs after one year of follow-up. MATERIAL AND
methodsA randomized split-mouth study was made of a cohort of patients with special needs. First and second permanent molars with occlusal caries were treated with glass ionomer, silver amalgam and composite resin. Assessments were made at 3, 6 and 12 months, using a scale based on the original code of Ryge and the USPHS criteria.
resultsA total of 34 patients and 102 restorations comprised the study sample. The survival rate of both the glass ionomer and silver amalgam was 100%, versus 97.1% in the case of composite resin. The glass ionomer afforded good marginal adaptation and stable color, with no fractures or secondary caries.
conclusionsThe glass ionomer remained successfully for one year in the occlusal cavities of the permanent molars, with the same survival rate as silver amalgam, and better survival than composite resin, in the patients with special needs.
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.