ReviewDentistry journal2024
Clinical Effectiveness of Ion-Releasing Restorations versus Composite Restorations in Dental Restorations: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Dentistry journal, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Cariostatic Mechanisms of Fluoride-An Updated Review.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Bioactive restorative materials in dentistry: a comprehensive review of mechanisms, clinical applications, and future directions.Odontology · 2026Review
- Article
- Bioactive and Ion-releasing materials in minimum intervention dentistry: a clinical pathway from prevention to restorative treatment.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2026Article
- Effect of particle size reduction on the physicochemical and mechanical properties of conventional glass ionomer cement.Frontiers in dental medicine · 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundTo compare the clinical effectiveness of ion-releasing restorations (IRR) vs. composite resin (CR) in dental restorations.
methodsA systematic search was carried out from articles published until January 2024, in the biomedical databases: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scielo, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Randomized clinical trials were included, with a follow-up time greater than or equal to 1 year, without time and language limits and which reported the clinical effect of IRR compared to CR in dental restorations. The RoB 2.0 tool was used to assess the risk of bias of the included studies and the GRADEPro GDT tool was used to assess the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendation of the results.
resultsThe search yielded a total of 1109 articles. After excluding those that did not meet the selection criteria, 29 articles remained for the quantitative synthesis. The analysis found no statistically significant difference when comparing the dental restorations with IRRs or CRs.
conclusionThe literature reviewed suggests that there are no differences between the IRRs and CRs in dental restorations.
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.