ReviewBDJ open2026
Fluoride release and mechanical properties of S-PRG fillers in dental materials: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in BDJ open, 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis systematic review aimed to assess the fluoride release and selected mechanical properties (direct tensile strength [DTS], flexural strength, and wear resistance) of S-PRG-containing dental materials.
methodA search was conducted using PubMed, Scopus, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar according to the PRISMA guidelines. Qualitative data were pooled narratively, and quantitative data were synthesized statistically in RevMan 5.4 using a random-effects meta-analysis. Subgroup analyses of DTS and flexural strength were conducted where appropriate. The risk of bias was assessed using the QUIN tool, and GRADE was used to assess the certainty of the evidence.
resultsOf the 216 studies identified, 18 were deemed eligible. Seven studies provided quantitative fluoride-release data for the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis revealed an overall statistically significant difference between S-PRG-containing materials and comparators (mean difference: -3.21; 95% CI: -4.12 to -2.30; p < 0.01) with very high heterogeneity between studies (I² = 98%). Subgroup meta-analyses of mechanical property comparisons revealed pooled estimates of 6.50 and 11.20 for the DTS and flexural strength comparisons, respectively. Both comparisons showed extreme heterogeneity between studies. Most studies demonstrated a moderate risk of bias, and the certainty of evidence was low.
conclusionOwing to their composition, S-PRG-containing materials might have the potential for fluoride release and may have different mechanical properties compared to comparator materials. Nevertheless, there is insufficient evidence owing to the extreme heterogeneity and high number of in vitro studies. Therefore, the interpretation of these findings should be made with caution, and future investigations should use standardized testing protocols and well-designed clinical trials.
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.