ArticleInternational dental journal2022
Evaluating the Mechanical Properties of Restorative Glass Ionomers Cements.
Article in International dental journal, 2022. 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.
- Effects of Different Zinc Modulations in Glass Ionomer Cements on Multi-Species Biofilm Formation and Human Tooth Demineralization: An In Vitro Study.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Strategies for Enhancing Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement-A Short Review.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Evaluation of the Effects of Thermal Aging on the Surface Roughness of Novel Tooth-Colored Restorative Materials.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- Physical-mechanical, chemical and biological properties of graphene-reinforced glass ionomer cements.Restorative dentistry & endodontics · 2024Article
- In-vitro evaluation of fracture resistance of teeth restored with different high-viscosity glass ionomer restorative materials and bulk-fill composite resins.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Article
- In vitro evaluation of some mechanical properties and fluoride release of glass-ionomer cement modified with seashell nanoparticles.Journal of dental research, dental clinics, dental prospects · 2024Article
- Effects of Ion-Releasing Materials on Dentine: Analysis of Microhardness, Appearance, and Chemical Composition.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The influence of hydrothermal fatigue on the clinically relevant functional properties of conventional glass-ionomer cements.Scientific reports · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this research was to assess the efficiency of 4 restorative glass ionomer cements (GICs): Fuji IX (GC), ChemFil Rock (DENSPLY), Riva Self-Cure (SDI), and Ketac Nano (3M ESPE). MATERIALS AND
methodsThe 4 restorative glass ionomers' diametral tensile and compressive strengths were evaluated at room temperature for 24 hours and then stored in distilled water. The universal testing machine (INSTRON 5566A) was used to record the maximum load necessary to fracture specimens. Surface wear, diametral tensile strength, and compressive strength against dental ceramic were compared using analysis of variance followed by the Bonferroni method at a significance level of 0.05.
resultsKetac Nano and ChemFil Rock were found to have better diametral tensile strength than Riva Self-Cure and Fuji IX. The significant difference between ChemFil Rock and Fuji IX (P ≤ .005) and ChemFil Rock with Riva Self-Cure (P ≤ .005) was shown by post hoc analysis. Ketac Nano had better tensile strength than Riva Self-Cure and Fuji IX. Fuji IX showed the lowest material loss of the GICs as revealed by wear against VITABLOCS Mark II (VITA Zahnfabrik).
conclusionsThis study indicated a significant difference in the compressive strengths of ChemFil Rock and Riva Self-Cure. ChemFil Rock had the highest tensile strength. The diameter tensile strength of all 4 materials was statistically insignificant. Finally, Fuji IX had the least amount of material loss. ChemFil Rock was proven to be more effective than Fuji IX.
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.