ReviewCureus2025
Evaluation of Glass Ionomer Cement and Composite Resin Restorations in Hypomineralized Permanent First Molars: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Cureus, 2025. 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.
- 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
- Effect of Deproteinization on the Clinical Success of Composite Restorations in Molars Affected by Molar-Incisor Hypomineralization.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Bonding to Molar-Incisor Hypomineralization Affected Teeth: A Scoping Review of Adhesive Strategies, In Vitro Performance, and Clinical Outcomes.Frontiers in 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Restorative treatment for molars affected by molar incisor hypomineralization (MIH) presents a challenge due to the altered enamel structure. It is critical to understand the evidence base of the available restorative options, due to the high treatment burden for such teeth. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate and compare the success rates of glass ionomer cement (GIC) and composite resin restorations in hypomineralized first permanent molars and to further evaluate the restorations on the basis of modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria. This review was registered in International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) database as CRD42024566898. Searches were conducted in PubMed, Google Scholar and Ebsco from January 2000 to May 2024. A total of 13 studies were included according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) guidelines in qualitative synthesis and meta-analysis. The over-all success rate was calculated for each study as the primary outcome. The success rates for different parameters of the modified USPHS criteria was calculated as secondary outcome. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool and risk of bias in non-randomized studies of intervention (ROBINS-I) tool were used to assess the risk of bias. The combined effect, heterogeneity and publication bias were analyzed using Stata 17.0 (StataCorp LLC, College Station, TX, USA). A p-value <0.05 was regarded as statistically significant. Composite resin restorations presented significantly superior results over GIC for overall success (p = 0.0004), marginal adaptation (p = 0.0124) and surface texture (p <0.0001). For the parameters such as retention (p = 0.06), secondary caries (p = 0.20), marginal discolouration (p = 0.3830) and colour match (p = 0.1440) composite resin performed better; however, the difference was statistically nonsignificant. Considering the constraints of this systematic review and meta-analysis, it can be recommended that composite resin restorations presented superior results over GIC for hypomineralized permanent first molars. Complete removal of the hypomineralized tissue is recommended.
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.