Trial reportClinical oral investigations2024
Clinical performance of a glass-hybrid system in comparison with a resin composite in two-surface class II restorations: a 5-year randomised multi-centre study.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinical Performance of Bulk-Fill Versus Incremental Composite Placement Approaches in Vital Posterior Teeth: A 24 Months Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.] · 2026Trial
- Clinical performance of glass hybrid and short fiber-reinforced composite restorations in MIH-affected molars: A 60-month split-mouth randomized controlled trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Clinical performance of alkasite and glass-hybrid restorations compared with resin composite in class II cavities: a randomized clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Trial
- Early Clinical Performance of Two Powder-Liquid Restoratives in Class-I/II Cavities.The journal of adhesive dentistry · 2025Trial
- Can fiber reinforcement enhance the load-bearing capacity of self-adhesive restorative materials? An in vitro study.Odontology · 2026Article
- Vickers Hardness and Microleakage of Coated Glass-Hybrid and High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer Systems in Thermocycled Conservative Class II Cavities: An In Vitro Study.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Microhardness and Chemical Composition of Glass Ionomer and Glass Hybrid Cements Modified with Experimental Bioactive Glasses.Acta stomatologica Croatica · 2026Article
- Factors influencing dentists' choice of restorative materials for occlusal cavities: a cross-sectional study from Palestine.BMJ open · 2026Observational
- Comparative Analysis of Erosion and Erosion-Abrasion Resistance of Bioactive Glass Ionomer-Based Restorative Materials: A Surface Characterization Study.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Article
- Evaluation of fluoride and calcium ion release and fluoride recharge capacity of glass-ionomer materials modified with experimental bioactive glass.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Six-year survival and clinical performance of glass hybrid restorations following selective caries removal in teeth with molar incisor hypomineralization: a prospective cohort study.Clinical oral investigations · 2025Article
- Review
- The evaluation of internal adaptation of glass ionomer restorations applied after the use of different cavity conditioners in primary teeth: an in-vitro study.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- In-vitro evaluation of fracture resistance of teeth restored with different high-viscosity glass ionomer restorative materials and bulk-fill composite resins.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate the 5-year clinical performance of a glass hybrid restorative system and a nano-hybrid resin composite in moderate to large two-surface class II cavities. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study was carried out by dental schools in Zagreb, Croatia; Izmir, Turkey; Belgrade, Serbia; and Milan, Italy. A total of 180 patients requiring two class-II two-surface restorations in the molars of the same jaw were recruited. The teeth were randomly restored with either a nano-hybrid resin composite (Tetric EvoCeram, Ivoclar Vivadent) or a glass-hybrid material (EQUIA Forte, GC). During the 5-year follow-up, two calibrated evaluators at each centre scored the restorations annually using the FDI-2 scoring system. The survival rates were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using non-parametric matched pair tests (p < 0.05).
resultsThere were no statistically significant differences between the overall survival and success rates of the two types of restorations (p>0.05). The success rates (FDI-2 scores 1-3) for EQUIA Forte were 81.9% (average annual failure rate: 3.9%) and 90.7% for Tetric EvoCeram (average annual failure rate: 1.9%). The survival rates (FDI-2 scores 1-4) for EQUIA Forte and Tetric EvoCeram were 94.5% and 94.4%, respectively, with an average annual failure rate of 1.1%.
conclusionsIn terms of success and survival rates, both the glass-hybrid restorative system and the nano-hybrid resin composite have been shown to perform satisfactorily. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The results of this study indicate that EQUIA Forte can be one of the therapeutic options for moderate to large two-surface class II restorations of posterior teeth.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.