ArticleCureus2026
Effect of Cervical Restorations on Periodontal Health: An Observational Cross-Sectional Study.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Cervical restorations are commonly used to manage cervical lesions and defects involving the tooth structure near the gingival margin. Understanding the periodontal response associated with cervical restorations is essential for improving the long-term restorative success and periodontal stability. The present study aimed to evaluate the effect of cervical restorations on periodontal health and assess the influence of restoration margin position and restorative material type on periodontal parameters. Materials and methods This observational cross-sectional, split-mouth study included 120 teeth in 60 patients, divided into cervical restoration group (n = 60) and contralateral healthy teeth as control (n = 60) group. The periodontal parameters assessed included plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing pocket depth (PPD), and clinical attachment level (CAL). Restorations were further categorized according to margin location as supragingival, equigingival, or subgingival and according to restorative materials such as composite resin, glass ionomer cement (GIC), and resin-modified GIC (RMGIC). Statistical analyses were performed using the Mann-Whitney U test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and Dunn-Bonferroni post hoc analysis, with p < 0.05 considered statistically significant. Results The restored group demonstrated significantly higher PI, GI, PPD, and CAL values than did the control group (p < 0.001). Subgingival restorations exhibited the highest periodontal parameter values, whereas supragingival restorations exhibited the lowest values (p < 0.001). Composite resin restorations demonstrated significantly poorer periodontal outcomes than GIC and RMGIC restorations (p < 0.05). No significant differences were observed between GIC and RMGIC restorations (p > 0.05). Conclusions Cervical restorations are associated with poorer periodontal health, particularly when restoration margins are placed subgingivally. Composite resin restorations have demonstrated less favorable periodontal outcomes than glass ionomer-based materials. Appropriate restorative material selection, careful margin placement, and regular periodontal maintenance are important for preserving periodontal health around cervical restorations.
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.