SynthesisFrontiers in dental medicine2025
Clinical effectiveness of ion-releasing restorations compared to composite restorations in pediatric dental treatments: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in dental medicine, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The choice of restorative material in pediatric dentistry is clinically relevant for ensuring long-term tooth preservation and reducing recurrent caries. This systematic review and meta-analysis compared the clinical effectiveness of ion-releasing restorations (IRR) and composite resin (CR) in children's dental treatments. Methods: Randomized clinical trials with ≥1-year follow-up were identified through comprehensive searches in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scielo, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar up to January 2024. Studies reporting clinical outcomes of IRR vs. CR were analyzed. Risk of bias was assessed using RoB2.0, and evidence certainty with GRADE. Results: Of 1,109 records screened, nine trials were included. Pooled analyzes showed no statistically significant differences between IRR and CR regarding secondary caries, marginal adaptation, or restoration survival ( Conclusions: Within the limitations of available evidence, ion-releasing and composite restorations provide comparable clinical performance in pediatric dentistry. The findings support the use of IRR as a reliable alternative for child patients, offering bioactive benefits while maintaining similar restorative success to composites. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024524163, PROSPERO CRD42024524163.
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.