Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29998443›Full record

ArticleClinical oral investigations2019

Physical property investigation of contemporary glass ionomer and resin-modified glass ionomer restorative materials.

Matthew Moberg, John Brewster, John Nicholson, Howard Roberts

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Effectiveness of glass ionomer cements in the restorative treatment of radiation-related caries - a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. AnInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Açaí juice stains a glazed resin-modified glass-ionomer cement.Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL · 2024
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Antibiofilm and antimicrobial activity of temporary filling materials on root canals: an in situ acid challenge.Brazilian journal of microbiology : [publication of the Brazilian Society for Microbiology] · 2023
    Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Matthew Moberg42 Medical Group, Maxwell Air Force Base, 300 S. Twining Street, Montgomery, AL, USA.
John BrewsterAir Force Postgraduate Dental School Keesler AFB MS, Keesler AFB, 606 Fisher Street, Biloxi, MS, 39531, USA.
John NicholsonBluefield Centre for Biomaterials, 67-68 Hatton Garden, London, EC1N 8JY, UK.
Howard RobertsUniversity of Kentucky, College of Dentistry, 800 Rose Street, Lexington, KY, 40536, USA. Hwroberts1956@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2771-3356

Funding

81 Medical Group, Keesler AFB MS FKE20150010N
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe objective of this study was to investigate selected physical properties of nine contemporary and recently marketed glass ionomer cement (GIC) and four resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGI) dental restorative materials. MATERIALS AND

methodsSpecimens (n = 12) were fabricated for fracture toughness and flexure strength using standardized, stainless steel molds. Testing was completed on a universal testing machine until failure. Knoop hardness was obtained using failed fracture toughness specimens on a microhardness tester, while both flexural modulus and flexural toughness was obtained by analysis of the flexure strength results data. Testing was completed at 1 h, 24 h, 1 week, and then at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months. Mean data was analyzed with Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney (p = 0.05).

resultsPhysical properties results were material dependent. Physical properties of the GIC and RMGI products were inferior at 1 h compared to that at 24 h. Some improvement in selected physical properties were noted over time, but development processes were basically concluded by 24 h. A few materials demonstrated improved physical properties over the course of the evaluation.

conclusionsUnder the conditions of this study: 1. GIC and RMGI physical property performance over time was material dependent; 2. Polyalkenoate maturation processes are essentially complete by 24 h; 3. Although differences in GIC physical properties were noted, the small magnitude of the divergences may render such to be unlikely of clinical significance; 4. Modest increases in some GIC physical properties were noted especially flexural modulus and hardness, which lends support to reports of a maturing hydrogel matrix; 5. Overall, GIC product physical properties were more stable than RMGI; 6. A similar modulus reduction at 6 months for both RMGI and GIC produced may suggest a polyalkenoate matrix change; and 7. Globally, RMGI products demonstrated higher values of flexure strength, flexural toughness, and fracture toughness than GIC materials. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: As compared to RMGI materials, conventional glass ionomer restorative materials demonstrate more stability in physical properties.

Indexed as

Acrylic ResinsDental MaterialsGlass Ionomer CementsSilicon DioxideDental Restoration, PermanentMaterials TestingAcrylic ResinsDental Materialsglass ionomerGlass Ionomer CementsSilicon DioxideGlass ionomerHydrogel matrixPhysical property testingPolyalkenoateResin modified glass ionomer

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.