Trial reportEuropean archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry2026
Glass hybrid versus resin-modified glass ionomer cement in class II restorations of primary molars: a 24 months randomised clinical trial.
Trial report in European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the 24 month outcomes of a newer version of conventional glass ionomer cements (GIC; Equia Forte; GC Corp., Tokyo, Japan) and a standard resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC; Fuji II LC; GC Corp.) in Class II primary molar restorations and investigate reasons for failures.
methodsHealthy and cooperative 4- to 9-year-old children with proximal surface caries lesions in all four primary molars of the same jaw, following clinical and/or radiographic examination, received Class II restorations with GIC or RMGIC, allocated randomly per quadrant. These were assessed semi-annually for 2 years using modified USPHS criteria. The radiographic examination was conducted annually, and assessed the presence of furcation/periapical radiolucencies, pathological root resorption and secondary caries lesion formation. Cox regression analyses were used to determine restoration survival between the two materials; Mc Nemar's test was used to compare proportions of failure between the two restorative materials. The level of statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.
resultsOf the 63 children initially included in the study, 55 attended all four recalls, with a total of 120 restorations per material. There was a statistically significantly higher success rate in the RMGIC group compared to GIC (90.8% and 66.7%, respectively, p < 0.001). Most failures of GIC were attributed to partial or total loss of restoration (31.7%).
conclusionRMGIC Class II primary molar restorations had statistically significantly greater success compared to GIC restorations in the 24 month observation period.
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.