ReviewJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2025
Comparison of clinical performance of glass ionomer cement vs. composite resin in restorations of non-carious cervical lesions: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review 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. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: To compare the clinical performance of glass ionomer cement (GIC) vs. composite resin (CR) in restorations of non-carious cervical lesions (NCCL). Material and Methods: A bibliographic search was conducted until October 2023, in the biomedical databases: PubMed/Medline, Cochrane Library, SciELO, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar. Randomized clinical trials reporting the effect of GIC compared to CR in the restoration of NCCLs were included, without restrictions on publication date or language. 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 recommendations. Results: The search yielded a total of 296 articles. After excluding those that did not meet the selection criteria, 18 articles remained for the quantitative synthesis. The analysis found no statistically significant differences between CR and GIC in the restoration of NCCLs. Conclusions: The literature reviewed suggests that there are no differences in clinical performance over time when restoring NCCLs with CRs or GICs.
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.