Equia Forte
Clinical indication(s) / Claim(s)
Verbatim per manufacturer's Instructions-for-use (IFU) sheet

IFU Link
Claim 1: Class I restorations
Claim 2: Stress bearing Class II restorations (see separate technique guide for suggested cavity preparations)
Claim 3: Non-stress bearing Class II restorations
Claim 4: Intermediate restorative
Claim 5: Class V restorations
Claim 6: Root surface restorations
Claim 7: Core build up




.







 
 
 
 

Clinical evidence supporting the claim(s)
From full report(s) of prospective, clinical controlled trial(s)
Clinical evidence not supporting the claim(s)
From full report(s) of prospective, clinical controlled trial(s)
Clinical evidence not related to the claim(s)
From full report(s) of prospective, clinical controlled trial(s)
(c) RCHSR
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 1 Criterion II  = 0 Criterion III  = 0 / Total score = 0
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 1 Criterion II  = 0 Criterion III  = 0 / Total score = 0
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 1 Criterion II  = 0 Criterion III  = 0 / Total score = 0
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 1 Criterion II  = 0 Criterion III  = 0 / Total score = 0
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 1 Criterion II  = 0 Criterion III  = 0 / Total score = 0
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 0 Criterion II  = 0 Criterion III  = 0 / Total score = 0
CQ-Score of the publication
Criterion I = 1 Criterion II  = 1 Criterion III  = 0 / Total score = 0
Claim 1:
El-Bialy MR, Shaalan OO, El-Zohairy AA, El-Zoghby AF. Clinical evaluation of glass ionomer with glass hybrid technology versus conventional high-viscosity glass ionomer in class I cavities in patients with high caries risk: Randomized controlled trial. J Int Oral Health 2020;12:203-12.

Claim 2:
Miletic I, Baraba A, Basso M, Pulcini MG, Markovic D, Peric T, Ozkaya CA, Turkun LS. Clinical Performance of a Glass-Hybrid System Compared with a Resin Composite in the Posterior Region: Results of a 2-year Multicenter Study. J Adhes Dent. 2020;22(3):235-247.

Claim 5:
Koc Vural U, Meral E, Ergin E, Gürgan S. Twenty-four-month clinical performance of a glass hybrid restorative in non-carious cervical lesions of patients with bruxism: a split-mouth, randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2020 Mar;24(3):1229-1238.

Claims 3, 4 , 6 and 7:
Claim 2:
Saihara C. Longevity and cost-efficacy of ART restorations using different encapsulated glass ionomer cements: randomized clinical trial. Thesis; 2018

Gok Baba M, Kirzioglu Z, Ceyhan D. One-year clinical evaluation of two high-viscosity glass-ionomer cements in class II restorations of primary molars. Aust Dent J. 2021 Mar;66(1):32-40.

Araujo MP, Innes NP, Bonifácio CC, Hesse D, Olegário IC, Mendes FM, Raggio DP. Atraumatic restorative treatment compared to the Hall Technique for occluso-proximal carious lesions in primary molars; 36-month follow-up of a randomised control trial in a school setting. BMC Oral Health. 2020 Nov 11;20(1):318.

Balkaya H, Arslan S, Pala K. A randomized, prospective clinical study evaluating effectiveness of a bulk-fill composite resin, a conventional composite resin and a reinforced glass ionomer in Class II cavities: one-year results. J Appl Oral Sci. 2019 Oct 7;27:e20180678.