ArticleOral health & preventive dentistry2020
Comparative Evaluation of Antimicrobial Efficacy and Fluoride Release of Seven Different Glass-Ionomer-Based Restorative Materials.
Article in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluations of high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement modified by eucalyptus extract-loaded mesoporous silica nanoparticles: in vitro study.Odontology · 2026Article
- Effects of Additive Incorporation on Fluoride Release of Orthodontic Glass Ionomer Cements and Adhesives: A Systematic Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- The effect of different glass ionomer cements and surface coating applications on fluoride release and microhardness values.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Antimicrobial efficacy of light-cured glass ionomer cements incorporating red propolis extract.Biomaterial investigations in dentistry · 2025Article
- Organic antibacterial modifications of high-viscosity glass ionomer cement for atraumatic restorative treatment: A review.The Japanese dental science review · 2024Review
- Effects of Finishing on Surface Roughness of Four Different Glass-Ionomer Cements and One Alkasite: In Vitro Investigation over Time Using Aging Simulation.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2024Article
- Evaluation of Antibacterial Activity of a Bioactive Restorative Material Versus a Glass-Ionomer Cement on Streptococcus Mutans: In-Vitro Study.Dentistry journal · 2023Article
- Comparison of Antibacterial Activity, Cytotoxicity, and Fluoride Release of Glass Ionomer Restorative Dental Cements in Dentistry.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate one high-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (EQUIA/GC), two resin-modified glass ionomers (Fuji II LC/GC, Photac Fil Quick Aplicap/3M Oral Care), two traditional glass ionomers (Ketac Molar Easymix/3M, Fuji II/GC), and two compomers (Freedom/SDI, Dyract XP/Dentsply Sirona) through a comparison of fluoride release and antimicrobial effects. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 210 samples were prepared, as 10 for each of the 7 materials for fluoride release and 20 for each material for the antimicrobial effect tests. To measure fluoride release, 5 ml distilled water and 5 ml TISAB II were added to the samples, which were then incubated at 37˚C. The fluoride levels of the material were measured using the selective ion electrode on days 1, 3, 7, 14 and 28. To compare the antimicrobial effects, 20 samples were divided in two groups and implanted in culture media containing Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus acidophylus. Measurements were taken on days 2, 4 and 6. The diameter of the inhibition zone was recorded in millimetre (mm).
resultsAll the materials released fluoride and the difference between them was determined to be statistically significant (p < 0.01). The antimicrobial effect values of the materials against S. mutans and L. acidophylus were evaluated and statistically significant difference was determined between the materials on all the measurement days.
conclusionsAll the materials were observed to release fluoride. With the exception of the compomers, all the other materials showed an antimicrobial effect against S. mutans and L. acidophylus. Key words: fluoride, glass ionomer, antimicrobial, S. mutans, L. acidophylus.
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.