ArticleJournal of applied oral science : revista FOB2013
Mechanical performance of encapsulated restorative glass-ionomer cements for use with Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART).
Article in Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- 2-year survival and cost analysis of occlusoproximal ART restorations using encapsulated glass ionomer cement in primary molars: a randomized controlled trial.BMC oral health · 2024Trial
- A prospective and randomized clinical trial evaluating the effectiveness of ART restorations with high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement versus conventional restorations with resin composite in Class II cavities of permanent teeth: two-year follow-up.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2021Trial
- Randomized clinical trial of class II restoration in permanent teeth comparing ART with composite resin after 12 months.Clinical oral investigations · 2019Trial
- Three-year clinical evaluation of high-viscosity glass ionomer restorations in non-carious cervical lesions: a randomised controlled split-mouth clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2019Trial
- Randomized clinical trial of encapsulated and hand-mixed glass-ionomer ART restorations: one-year follow-up.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOB · 2018Trial
- One year survival of ART and conventional restorations in patients with disability.BMC oral health · 2014Trial
- The clinical success of ART restorations and Hall technique in primary molars: a randomized 18-month follow-up study.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2023Article
- Evaluating the Mechanical Properties of Restorative Glass Ionomers Cements.International dental journal · 2022Article
- Article
- Evaluation of the Mechanical Properties of Three Resin-Modified Glass-Ionomer Materials.BioMed research international · 2022Article
- Structural, Physical, and Mechanical Analysis of ZnO and TiOMaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Effect of a novel glass ionomer cement containing fluoro-zinc-silicate fillers on biofilm formation and dentin ion incorporation.Clinical oral investigations · 2020Article
- An in vitro assessment of the physical properties of manually- mixed and encapsulated glass-ionomer cements.BDJ open · 2020Article
- The effect of resin coating on the shear punch strength of restorative glass ionomer cements.Clinical oral investigations · 2017Article
- Setting kinetics and mechanical properties of flax fibre reinforced glass ionomer restorative materials.Journal of biomedical research · 2017Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Compressive Strength of Self-cure, Dual-cure, and Light-cure Glass Ionomer Cements in a Simulated Oral Environment: AnInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistryArticle
- Comparison of microleakage from stainless steel crowns margins used with different restorative materials: An in vitro study.Dental research journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
unlabelledThe Atraumatic Restorative Treatment (ART) approach was suggested to be a suitable method to treat enamel and dentine carious lesions in patients with disabilities. The use of a restorative glass-ionomer with optimal mechanical properties is, therefore, very important.
objectiveTo test the null-hypotheses that no difference in diametral tensile, compressive and flexural strengths exists between: (1) The EQUIA system and (2) The Chemfil Rock (encapsulated glass-ionomers; test materials) and the Fuji 9 Gold Label and the Ketac Molar Easymix (hand-mixed conventional glass-ionomers; control materials); (3) The EQUIA system and Chemfil Rock. MATERIAL AND
methodsSpecimens for testing flexural (n = 240) and diametral tensile (n=80) strengths were prepared according to standardized specifications; the compressive strength (n=80) was measured using a tooth-model of a class II ART restoration. ANOVA and Tukey B tests were used to test for significant differences between dependent and independent variables.
resultsThe EQUIA system and Chemfil Rock had significantly higher mean scores for all the three strength variables than the Fuji 9 Gold Label and Ketac Molar Easymix (α=0.05). The EQUIA system had significant higher mean scores for diametral tensile and flexural strengths than the Chemfil Rock (α=0.05).
conclusionThe two encapsulated high-viscosity glass-ionomers had significantly higher test values for diametral tensile, flexural and compressive strengths than the commonly used hand-mixed high-viscosity glass-ionomers.
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.