Trial reportThe journal of adhesive dentistry2025
Early Clinical Performance of Two Powder-Liquid Restoratives in Class-I/II Cavities.
Trial report in The journal of adhesive 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis randomized clinical trial (RCT) aims to evaluate the clinical performance of the two powder-liquid restoratives Cention Forte ('CF'; Ivoclar Vivadent AG, Schaan, Liechtenstein) and Equia Forte HT ('EF'; GC, Tokyo, Japan) in class-I/II restorations. Here, the early 6-month clinical performance is reported. MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty-nine patients were included based on specific exclusion/inclusion criteria. Each patient had two teeth with similar cavities restored using either CF or EF, which were randomly assigned using the Castor EDC system. Baseline (BL) evaluation occurred at 2 weeks followed by a 6-month recall, both conducted by two independent examiners using FDI criteria.
resultsThe 6-month recall rate was 96.6%. All restorations were rated as clinically acceptable, except for 1 EF restoration showing a severe but repairable marginal defect. Similar clinical performance was recorded for both restorative materials regarding surface staining, margin discolouration, anatomic form, approximal contact, postoperative hypersensitivity, and tooth integrity. Slight but still clinically acceptable marginal deterioration was observed for both restoratives. Regarding color match, most EF restorations (94.7%) showed a clinically acceptable deviation in color match (opaquer; FDI score 2 and 3), compared to 57.9% CF restorations having an excellent color match rated as FDI score 1. The percentage of EF restorations with a surface luster comparable to that of enamel (FDI score 1) decreased from 50.8% at BL to 14% at 6 months, mainly due to wearing off of the resin-based coating. CF restorations showed more frequently a slightly dull surface (FDI Score 2 for BL: 81.4%; 6 months: 82.5%).
conclusionBoth powder-liquid restoratives revealed a similarly favorable early clinical performance after 6 months of clinical service.
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.