Trial reportBMC oral health2026
One-year clinical evaluation of a giomer-based injectable composite compared with a highly viscous glass-ionomer cement in restoring class II cavities of primary molars: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06000085 (Clinical Performance of a Flowable Giomer Versus a Highly Viscous Glass-ionomer Cement in Restoring Class II Cavities of Primary Molars), 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.
Clinical Performance of a Flowable Giomer Versus a Highly Viscous Glass-ionomer Cement in Restoring Class II Cavities of Primary Molars: 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDental caries in the primary dentition remains a major concern, with Class II cavities in molars posing particular restorative challenges. BEAUTIFIL Flow Plus X, a giomer-based injectable composite, offers esthetic and mechanical benefits with fluoride release and easier placement in children, while EQUIA
methodsA total of 124 primary molars with Class II cavities were randomized with a 1:1 allocation ratio into two groups: Group I received (EQUIA FORTE HT Fil), while Group II received (BEAUTIFIL Flow Plus X F00). Restorations were placed according to manufacturer's instructions and evaluated for their esthetic, functional, and biological properties using FDI criteria at 3-, 6-, and 12-month intervals. Restorations with total scores of 4 (repair) or 5 (replacement) were recorded as failures. The trial was approved by the Institutional Research Ethical Committee, Faculty of Dentistry, Ain Shams University. Statistical analyses included the Mann-Whitney U test for intergroup and Wilcoxon signed-rank test for intragroup comparisons. The significance level was set at p ≤ 0.05.
resultsAt 12 months, the clinical success rates were 88.3% for Equia Forte HT Fil and 93.4% for BEAUTIFIL Flow Plus X, with no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05). BEAUTIFIL Flow Plus X demonstrated superior esthetic outcomes, with statistically significant advantages in surface luster (p = 0.002) and color match (p < 0.001). Key functional FDI criteria, including fracture and retention as well as marginal adaptation, were comparable between groups, with no statistically significant differences. Biologically, both materials performed comparably with no significant differences and no observed recurrent caries or postoperative sensitivity in either group.
conclusionBoth restorative approaches demonstrated acceptable clinical performance in class II cavities of primary molars after 12 months. While functional and biological outcomes were comparable, BEAUTIFIL Flow Plus X provided superior esthetics.
trial registrationThis RCT was registered at Clinical Trial.gov with registration number (NCT06000085) on the date of 11/8/2023.
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.