ArticleCureus2026
Comparative Evaluation of the Wear Rate of Reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement and Bulk-Fill Composite Using 3D Scan in Extracted Teeth and Its Association With Clinical Wear Rate in Class I and II Restorations: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Article in Cureus, 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
backgroundReinforced glass ionomer cements (GICs) have gained attention as potential durable alternatives to resin composites for posterior restorations, owing to their improved mechanical properties and fluoride release. However, limited standardized protocols exist to assess their long-term wear resistance and clinical performance, particularly in comparison with bulk-fill resin composites under variable patient-related factors.
aimThis study aimed to develop a standardized protocol to evaluate the suitability of reinforced GIC as a durable permanent direct restorative material in Class I and Class II cavities compared with bulk-fill resin composites and to correlate in vitro findings with clinical wear behavior. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study consisted of two phases: an in vitro experimental phase followed by a correlational clinical trial. In the in vitro phase, 40 extracted human molar teeth were collected and divided according to cavity type: Group 1 (Class I cavities; n = 20), Group 2 (Class II cavities; n = 20), and subgroups a (reinforced GIC; n = 10) and b (bulk-fill composite; n = 10). The restored samples were stored in distilled water for 24 hours and subjected to simulated mastication cycles equivalent to six and 12 months of clinical function using a chewing simulator. Volumetric wear was determined using the Geomagic software (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA). In the clinical phase, restorations made of the same materials and with the same cavity configurations were placed in patients and monitored periodically for three-dimensional wear and volumetric changes.
resultsThe wear was assessed using the Geomagic Control X (3D Systems, Rock Hill, SC, USA) and WearCompare software on replica models, and restorations were analyzed using the revised Fédération Dentaire Internationale (FDI) criteria.
conclusionThe standardized in vitro-in vivo protocol provides a reliable framework to assess the durability and clinical relevance of reinforced GICs compared with bulk-fill composites in posterior restorations, offering insight into their long-term functional behavior under patient-related influences.
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.