ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Evaluation of pulpal response at varying remaining dentin thickness in teeth restored with resin bulk fill composite, conventional glass ionomer cement and silver amalgam: Histomorphometric analysis.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluating the cytotoxicity and efficacy of nanoemulsion containing propolis plus Nigella sativa nanoparticles for pulpotomy of primary teeth: randomised split-mouth clinical trial pilot study.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2025Trial
- A Novel Preparation-Free Palatal Veneer Technique with Incisal Seating Lugs for Management of Tooth Surface Loss: A Case Report.Reports (MDPI) · 2026Article
- A Narrative Review of the Material Properties, Clinical Efficacy, and Developmental Prospects of Bulk-Fill Resin-Based Composites.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2026Review
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
Objective: To compare and evaluate the pulp response to GC glass ionomer cement, SDR plus bulk fill composite and amalgam against gold standard calcium hydroxide cement at varying remaining dentin thickness, in teeth planned for orthodontic extraction. Method: Thirty-eight human premolars were prepared with 2 mm or 2.5 mm depth cavities. They were restored with GC conventional glass ionomer cement, SDR plus bulk fill composite, amalgam, or lined with Dycal and restored with GIC. Two teeth were used as intact controls. After a 7-day interval, the teeth were extracted and processed for histological examination of the pulp and the thickness of the remaining dentin between the cavity floor and pulp tissue. Results: All experimental groups showed some degree of inflammatory response. A significantly higher inflammatory response and more tissue disorganization were observed with SDR bulk fill composite (p < 0.05) compared to Glass ionomer cement, amalgam and Dycal at both cavity depths of 2 mm or 2.5 mm. The mean RDTs ranged from 346 μm to 1025 μm. Conclusions: The study concluded that critical RDT varies for different restorative materials. It was observed that both glass ionomer cement and amalgam demonstrated acceptable biocompatibility when used in deep cavities. At the same time, SDR plus bulk fill composite proved to be the least biocompatible.
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.