ArticleInternational journal of dentistry2022
Brushing Effect on the Properties of Glass Ionomer Cement Modified by Hydroxyapatite Nanoparticles or by Bioactive Glasses.
Article in International journal of dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Microhardness, Surface Roughness, and Wear Resistance Enhancement of Reinforced Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement Using Fluorinated Graphene Oxide Nanosheets.European journal of dentistry · 2024Article
- Article
- Incorporation of Nanomaterials in Glass Ionomer Cements-Recent Developments and Future Perspectives: A Narrative Review.Nanomaterials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the physical and mechanical properties of glass ionomer cement (GIC) associated with 5% hydroxyapatite nanoparticles (NPHAps) and 10% bioactive glass (BAG) 45S5 before and after brushing at different storage times. Surface roughness was evaluated using a rugosimeter, Vickers hardness using a microdurometer, and mass variation measured in an analytical balance at 1, 7, 15, 30, and 60 days before and after the brushing test, with the aid of toothbrushing simulator and soft bristle toothbrushes. Nonnormal distribution was observed, and the nonparametric Wilcoxon and Kruskal-Wallis tests followed by Dunn's were performed, with a significance level of 5%. We observed higher values for mass loss on the first day for all groups. The surface roughness was lower in the control and NP groups, 30 days after brushing. Higher values for hardness were found in the control group and lower ones for NP, after brushing. The control and BAG groups presented a decrease in hardness over time. The NP group presented the highest values before brushing, while the control group had the highest values after brushing. The association of NPHPa with the GIC is the most promising combination, since it presented satisfactory values for surface hardness. However, conventional GIC not associated with NPHPa or BAG is still an option, since it is available in the market and the most economically viable option.
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.