ArticleBiomedicines2022
Conventional and Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement Surface Characteristics after Acidic Challenges.
Article in Biomedicines, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 24 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of two pediatric multivitamin forms on surface characteristics and color stability of single-shade composite, nanofilled composite, and glass ionomer cement: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Mechanical Properties, Color Stability, and Surface Roughness of Gingiva-Shaded Composites.International journal of dentistry · 2026Article
- Evaluation of Factors Affecting Fluoride Release from Dental Sealants: A Systematic Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- In Vitro Assessment of Corrosion Rate, Vickers Hardness and SEM Analysis of Glass Ionomer Cements and Calcium Silicate-Based Materials.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Synthesis and Application of Sol-Gel-Derived Nano-Silica in Glass Ionomer Cement for Dental Cementation.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Investigating the impact of whitening toothpastes on bioactive resin-based restorative materials: a comparative analysis.BMC oral health · 2024Article
- Enhancing Wear Resistance in Glass Ionomer Cement through Green-mediated Chitosan-, Titanium-, Zirconium-, and Hydroxyapatite-based Nanocomposites: An Analysis before and after Chewing Simulator Endurance.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2024Article
- Effect of the Different Dietary Supplements on the Average Surface Roughness and Color Stability of Direct Restorative Materials Used in Pediatric Dentistry.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Correlation between fluoride release, surface hardness and diametral tensile strength of restorative glass ionomer cements.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2024Article
- Article
- The influence of hydrothermal fatigue on the clinically relevant functional properties of conventional glass-ionomer cements.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- Effects of Acidic Environments on Dental Structures after Bracket Debonding.International journal of molecular sciences · 2022Article
- Mechanical Properties of Orthodontic Cements and Their Behavior in Acidic Environments.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Surface Roughness Examination of Glass Ionomer Restorative Cements Treated with Acidic and Basic Pediatric Medications: 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
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to assess by atomic force microscopy (AFM) the surface roughness of a traditional glass ionomer cement- GIC (Fuji IX GP, GC Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) and a resin modified glass ionomer cement- RMGIC (Vitremer, 3M ESPE, St. Paul, MN, USA) after different immersion regimes on some acidic drinks. Sixteen cylindrical samples having the height of 5 mm and the thickness of 2 mm were obtained from each material and they were divided into two groups: Group I (Fuji IX samples) and Group II (Vitremer samples). Specimens of each group were then randomly divided into 4 subgroups: subgroup A (control)-15 samples were kept in artificial saliva and in the other three subgroups, each having 15 samples the samples were immersed in Coca-Cola (subgroup B), Cappy lemonade and mint (subgroup C) and Fuzetea (subgroup D) for 7 days (subgroups A1-D1), 14 days (subgroups A2-D2), and 21 days (subgroups A3-D3). AFM qualitative and quantitative surface evaluation (mean value of surface roughness parameter, Sa) of each sample was performed. The highest surface roughness was determined when both materials were submerged 14 days in acidic drinks. Traditional GIC was more affected by acidic environment when comparing to RMGIC.
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.