Trial reportInternational journal of dental hygiene2026
Clinical Performance of Bioglass-Enriched Resin Modified Glass Ionomer in Sealing Moderate Carious Lesions: An 18-Month Split-Mouth Clinical Trial.
Trial report in International journal of dental hygiene, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
Abstract
Dental materials with the potential for caries progression prevention have been an attractive alternative to minimally invasive treatments.
objectivesThis randomized controlled split-mouth clinical trial aimed to assess, after 18 months, the retention, restoration quality, and caries progression or arrestment of active moderate carious lesions (International Caries Detection and Assessment System [ICDAS] 3-4) sealed with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) and 45S5 bioglass-enriched RMGIC (RMGIC/45S5). METHODOLOGY: A total of 52 molars with occlusal caries (ICDAS 3-4) were selected. For this split-mouth clinical trial, the permanent molars without mechanical preparation were randomly sealed with RMGIC or RMGIC/45S5. After 18 months, the restorations were compared with the initial treatment (baseline) regarding retention, quality of the remaining material (anatomical shape, marginal adaptation, surface texture, and marginal discoloration), and clinical/radiographic caries progression. The Wilcoxon and Fisher's exact tests were used for data evaluation.
resultsAfter 18 months, no statistically significant differences were found in the retention and material quality of teeth treated with RMGIC or RMGIC/45S5 (p > 0.05). The clinical and radiographic evaluations showed no statistical difference between the materials when considering caries arrestment and progression (p > 0.05).
conclusionsThe addition of 45S5 bioglass to RMGIC did not change the retention, restoration quality, and caries progression or arrestment levels after 18 months of follow-up.
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.