ArticleInternational dental journal2023
Nano-cellulose Reinforced Glass Ionomer Restorations: An In Vitro study.
Article in International dental journal, 2023. 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, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Surface Roughness and Bond Strength of PEEK Posts: Comparing Chemical, Mechanical, and Laser Methods.International dental journal · 2026Article
- Bacterial cellulose-enhanced MTA versus conventional MTA for indirect pulp capping in primary teeth: a randomized controlled clinical trial.The Saudi dental journal · 2026Article
- The Effect of Resin-modified Glass Ionomer Containing Bacterial Cellulose Nanocrystal as a Base on the Fracture Resistance of Class II Restorations.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Review
- Investigation of the Combined Impact of Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles and Bacterial Cellulose Nanocrystals on the Bond Strength to Dentin and Fracture Resistance of Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cement in Primary Molars.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Article
- 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 Incorporating Date Seeds Microparticles on Compressive Strength and Microhardness of Conventional Glass Ionomer (anJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2024Article
- Article
- Preparation and characterization of carex meyeriana Kunthcellulose nanofibers by electrospinning.Scientific reports · 2022Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveVarious modifications in formulation of glass ionomer cements (GICs) have been made in order to improve the clinical performance of these restorations. The aim of this work was to evaluate the microleakage and microshear bond strength (μSBS) of bacterial cellulose nanocrystal (BCNC)-modified glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations in primary dentition.
methodsA total number of 60 freshly extracted primary molar teeth were selected. Half of the samples were used for μSBS testing (in 2 groups, n = 15). In group 1, conventional GIC (CGIC) of Fuji IX (GC) was placed in cylindrical molds on dentinal surfaces. In group 2, CGIC of Fuji IX containing 1% wt of BCNCs was used. μSBS was evaluated using a universal testing machine. In another part of the study, microleakage of class V restorations was assessed according to the mentioned groups (n = 15). The sectioned samples were observed under stereomicroscope, and microleakage scores were recorded. SPSS version 16.0 (SPSS), independent samples t test, and Mann-Whitney U test were used for statistical analysis at a significance level of P < .05.
resultsResults showed statistically significant differences between the μSBS of CGIC and modified GIC groups (P < .0001). The BCNC-modified GIC group recorded significantly higher bond strength values (3.51 ± 0.033 vs 1.38 ± 0.034 MPa). Also, microleakage scores of CGIC and BCNC-modified GIC restorations were not significantly different (P = .57).
conclusionsBased on our findings, it was concluded that incorporating BCNCs (1% wt) into the CGIC of Fuji IX significantly increased the μSBS to the dentin structure of the primary teeth.
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.