ArticleJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry2020
Effect of different polishing techniques on surface roughness and bacterial adhesion of three glass ionomer-based restorative materials:
Article in Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry, 2020. 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, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Surface Integrity of Widely Used Resin-Modified Glass Ionomers: New Findings Amid Limited Scientific Literature.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- Effect of Immediate and Delayed Finishing and Polishing on the Surface Roughness and Microhardness of Alkasite and Giomer.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Review
- Surface roughness and biofilm formation on tooth-colored restorative materials immersed in food-simulating liquids.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- Article
- Effect of surface treatment on glass ionomers in sandwich restorations: a systematic review and meta-analysis of laboratory studies.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2025Article
- Comparative measurement of short-term fluoride release and inhibition of caries around restoration by ion releasing restorative materials: an in vitro study.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Effect of erosive conditions on different sealant materials used in paediatric dentistry.Brazilian oral research · 2024Article
- Changes in Gloss Alteration, Surface Roughness, and Color of Direct Dental Restorative Materials after Professional Dental Prophylaxis.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Article
- Surface properties and initial bacterial biofilm growth on 3D-printed oral appliances: a comparative in vitro study.Clinical oral investigations · 2023Article
- Does Sterilization Affect the Performance of Single-Step Resin Composite Polishers?Dentistry journal · 2023Article
- Physico-mechanical properties and bacterial adhesion of resin composite CAD/CAM blocks: AnJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2022Article
- Article
- Effect of Polishing on the Surface Microhardness of Nanohybrid Composite Resins Subjected to 35% Hydrogen Peroxide: AnJournal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough many reports concluded that polishing of glass ionomers is crucial for smoother surface and limiting the adhesion of cariogenic bacteria, there is no specific surface treatment protocol recommended. A novel material in the same category was released recently claimed to have surface smoothness comparable to resin composite and bacterial adhesion less than other types of glass ionomers. In this study, different polishing systems were tested with three glass ionomers one of them is the novel material to find the most appropriate polishing protocol. Objectives: To evaluate and compare the surface roughness and bacterial adhesion to resin modified glass ionomer, bioactive ionic resin and conventional glass ionomer restorative materials after different polishing protocols in vitro. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe materials tested includes resin modified glass ionomer, bioactive ionic resin, and conventional glass ionomer. The polishing protocols were divided into four groups: group 1 = (Mylar matrix strips, Control), group 2 = (one-step, PoGo), group 3 = (two-step, Prisma Gloss) and group 4 = (three-step, Sof-Lex). From each material, eleven cylindrical specimens were prepared for each group according to the manufacturers' instructions. The surface roughness for all specimens was measured using atomic force microscope in tapping mode. the same specimens were subjected to bacterial adhesion testing after being coated with artificial saliva. Data were analyzed with two-way analysis of variance followed by Post hoc multiple comparisons.
resultsThe highest Ra and
conclusionsOne-step polishing system was more effective and may be preferable for polishing of the three studied glass ionomer-based materials compared to two-step and three-step systems.
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.