ReviewCureus2025
Systematic Review of Studies Comparing Microleakage After Restoration With Cention and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement in Human Extracted Teeth.
Review in Cureus, 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.
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
Cention is an amalgamation of composite resin and glass ionomer cement (GIC) with alkaline fillers, having superior mechanical and aesthetic properties. While the material has proven excellent in providing functional and aesthetic outcomes, its long-term performance in terms of microleakage needs to be studied. The present systematic review was conducted to analyze the currently available evidence concerning the microleakage of Cention and how it fares against GIC in the clinical scenario. A systematic search was performed across various electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar, using the keywords "Cention", "glass ionomer cement", and "microleakage". In-vitro studies assessing microleakage in human extracted teeth after placement of Cention and comparing it to that of GIC were included in the review. Data extraction was performed. The extracted data included study characteristics (authors, publication year, study design), samples used for the study, types of interventions (Cention and conventional GIC), preparatory details (sectioning, thermocycling), and microleakage assessment methods, outcomes, and conclusive findings. The QUIN tool was used for assessing the risk of bias. Based on the conclusive findings presented by the authors of the studies included in the current systematic review, it was apparent that Cention exhibited lower microleakage when compared to GIC. Meta-analysis revealed that the reduction in microleakage on average was 3.12 times more in the Cention group compared to the conventional GIC, and the difference was not statistically significant (p>0.05). The majority of the included studies in the present systematic review found that Cention tended to have lower microleakage compared to conventional GIC, supporting its effectiveness in reducing leakage at the tooth-restoration interface. Our meta-analysis indicates a trend toward reduced microleakage in the Cention group. However, the lack of statistical significance and the presence of substantial heterogeneity and publication bias highlight the need for cautious interpretation.
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.