SynthesisClinical oral investigations2025
The clinical performance of high-viscosity glass ionomer-based and bulk-fill resin-based restorations in permanent teeth with occlusal or proximal cavities: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. 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.
- Vickers Hardness and Microleakage of Coated Glass-Hybrid and High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer Systems in Thermocycled Conservative Class II Cavities: An In Vitro Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Factors influencing dentists' choice of restorative materials for occlusal cavities: a cross-sectional study from Palestine.BMJ open · 2026Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo summarize and analyze existing evidence regarding the clinical performance of high-viscosity glass-ionomer-based materials (HVGIs) and bulk-fill resin-based composites (BFs) in patients with occlusal or proximal cavities in permanent teeth. MATERIALS AND
methodsA literature search was conducted using PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science (WOS) (last update: April 19th, 2024). Randomized control trials (RCTs), retrospective and prospective comparative cohorts were included. Manual searching was performed for twelve relevant dental journals. The primary outcome was the retention of the restoration. The evaluation of included studies, data extraction, and study selection were completed by two independent reviewers. The Cochrane risk-of-bias tool (RoB 2) and the Newcastle-Ottawa scale were used to assess the quality of included studies. A quantitative meta-analysis was conducted, and the overall quality of the evidence was evaluated.
resultsFive RCTs and one retrospective study were included, of which one had a high risk of bias and the others had an unclear risk of bias. In meta-analyses, HVGIs were associated with a less favorable outcome on retention both at one (p = 0.013) and two-year follow-ups (p < 0.0001) compared with BFs. The quality of the evidence was very low.
conclusionsVery low certainty evidence suggested that BFs presented favorable clinical performance on retention and marginal adaptation in Class I and II restorations in permanent teeth comparing HVGIs. Nevertheless, HVGIs with a resin-based coating showed acceptable clinical behavior. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: For patients with a high caries risk, HVGIs serve as a direct restorative alternative for the posterior permanent teeth; however, they should be carefully considered as bulk-fill composite resin alternatives for long-term restoration. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42024535999).
Indexed as
Identifiers
39775085What 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.