Trial reportClinical and experimental dental research2026
Comparison of Post-Cementation Sensitivity Between Resin Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement as a Luting Material-A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT07102121 (Comparison of Post Cementation Sensitivity Between Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement as a Luting Material), which is not on this 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.
Comparison of Post Cementation Sensitivity Between Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement as a Luting Material: A Randomized Clinical Trial
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
objectiveTo compare post-cementation sensitivity between resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and conventional glass ionomer cement (GIC) used as luting agents for single crowns. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis randomized controlled trial was conducted at Saidu College of Dentistry, Swat, Pakistan. A total of 496 eligible participants were randomized into two groups: GIC (n = 248) and RMGIC (n = 248). Post-cementation sensitivity was recorded at 24 h, 1 week, and 1 month using a 10-point visual analog scale (VAS), with scores categorized as no, mild, moderate, or severe sensitivity. Data were analyzed using Mann-Whitney U tests, and linear mixed-effects models adjusted for age, gender, jaw, and prosthesis location.
resultsBaseline demographic and clinical characteristics were comparable between groups. Post-cementation sensitivity was consistently lower in the RMGIC group compared to the GIC group across all time points. Median sensitivity scores at 24 h were 4.0 (GIC) versus 3.0 (RMGIC, p < 0.001); at 1 week, 2.0 versus 1.0 (p < 0.001); and at 1 month, both minimal but significantly lower in the RMGIC group (p < 0.001). The adjusted mixed-effects model confirmed that RMGIC significantly reduced sensitivity compared to GIC (β = -0.53; OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.46-0.75; p < 0.001). Sensitivity was highest at 24 h (β = 2.96; OR 19.3, 95% CI 15.3-24.3; p < 0.001), followed by 1 week (β = 0.81; OR 2.25, 95% CI 1.77-2.86; p < 0.001), and declined markedly by 1 month. Age showed a modest protective effect (β = -0.008; OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00; p = 0.04), while gender, jaw, and prosthesis location were not significant predictors. A significant interaction at 24 h showed RMGIC provided an additional reduction in sensitivity compared to GIC (β = -0.83; OR 0.44, 95% CI 0.31-0.61; p < 0.001).
conclusionRMGIC demonstrated significantly lower post-cementation sensitivity compared to conventional GIC.
trial registrationThis trial was retrospectively registered with Clinical Trials Registry of ClinicalTrials.gov(registration#NCT07102121) on August 3, 2025.
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.