ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Evaluating fluoride uptake of dentin from different restorative materials at various time intervals - In vitro study.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bioactivity of Glass Carbomer Versus Conventional GICs in Sound Enamel and Dentine: A 12-Month SEM-EDS Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Fluoride and Calcium Release from Alkasite and Glass Ionomer Restorative Dental Materials: In Vitro Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
backgroundGlass ionomer cement is very popular in clinical practice due to their antibacterial and cariostatic properties, which is totally dependant on the amount of fluoride release and uptake by dentine. The short-term and long-term fluoride uptake by dentine from commercially available restorative materials like nano-ionomer, zirconia reinforced glass ionomer cement and flowable composite is of clinical interest.
objectiveTo evaluate and compare Nano-ionomer, Zirconia reinforced glass ionomer, and flowable composite resin for the fluoride uptake by dentin at different time intervals.
resultsOne-way ANOVA (Tukey-Kramer Multiple Comparison Test) was applied to test the comparison of mean values of all parameters compared together. The student's paired 't' test was applied to compare groups. The fluoride uptake was evaluated at 3 days and 42 days. At 3 days dentin showed higher fluoride uptake with Zirconomer (Group Z) as compared to Ketac N100 and SDR Composite which was statistically significant. At 42 days higher fluoride uptake was seen in Ketac N100 (Group K) as compared to Zirconomer and SDR composite which was also statistically significant.
conclusionFluoride uptake by dentine was seen in all study materials. Fluoride uptake by dentine at 3 days was seen maximum in Zirconomer, whereas fluoride uptake at 42 days was more in Ketac N100.
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.