ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2025
Clinical Evaluation of Chemically Cured Conventional Glass Ionomer after Light Emitting Diode Radiant Heat Enhancement: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Assessing the clinical efficiency of chemically cured conventional glass ionomer after light-emitting diode radiant heat enhancement using Federation Dentaire International (FDI) criteria for assessment of dental restorations, regarding both functional and biological properties immediately, after 6 months and 12 months. Material and Methods: Twenty-two healthy patients were selected where each patient had two oclusso- mesial cavities in upper or lower second permanent molar. Standardized oclusso- mesial cavities were prepared for all the selected teeth, for each patient the first tooth was restored with chemically cured conventional glass ionomer cements (GICs) without any enhancement (M1 group). Meanwhile, the second tooth was restored by the same material enhanced with radiant heat light emitting diode (LED) (M2 group). Functional and biological criteria of each restoration was clinically evaluated immediately after restoration (T0), six months later (T1), and after 12 months (T2) using Federation Dentaire International (FDI) criteria for assessment of dental restorations. Results: Chi-squared and Wilcoxon's signed rank test revealed that there was no statistically significant difference between both groups for the tested properties at baseline and 6 months follow-up time. At 12 months of follow-up time, 55% of M1 group and 95% of M2 group were clinically successful with significant difference between them. Conclusions: Chemically cured conventional GIC enhanced with LED radiant heat exhibited better clinical performance than the same material without enhancement at 12 months of follow-up time.
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.