ArticleMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2023
Comparison of Antibacterial Activity, Cytotoxicity, and Fluoride Release of Glass Ionomer Restorative Dental Cements in Dentistry.
Article in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2023. 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.
- Dental Glass Ionomer Cement for Root Perforation Management: Physicochemical Characteristics and In Vitro Cell Response.Dentistry journal · 2026Article
- Acid erosion, surface topography, and fluoride release of glass ionomer cements subjected to erosive challenge.Brazilian dental journal · 2026Article
- Evaluation of bioactive restorative materials on cell viability using direct and extract methods.Brazilian oral research · 2026Article
- Formulation, development and characterization of fosfomycin tromethamine pessaries for the treatment of vaginal infections.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- The effect of different glass ionomer cements and surface coating applications on fluoride release and microhardness values.BMC oral health · 2025Article
- An In Vitro Tube Model for Cell Biocompatibility Study of Capping Materials for Regenerative Endodontics.Journal of endodontics · 2025Article
- The Impact of Environmental and Material Factors on Fluoride Release from Metal-Modified Glass Ionomer Cements: A Systematic Review of In Vitro Studies.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- The Effect of Different pH and Temperature Values on CaPolymers · 2025Article
- Fluoride-Induced Microhardness Changes in Resin-Modified Glass Ionomer Cements: A Comparative Study.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 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
- Comparison of Class II Bulk-Fill, Self-Adhesive Composites, Alkasite, and High-Viscosity Glass Ionomer Restorations in Terms of Marginal and Internal Adaptation.Materials (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
- Tensile strength of conventional glass ionomer cement and silver reinforced glass ionomer cement.Bioinformation · 2024Article
- Remineralizing Ability of Resin Modified Glass Ionomers (RMGICs): A Systematic Review.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2023Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND This study aimed to compare the antibacterial activity, cytotoxicity, and fluoride release of 4 different glass ionomer cements (GIC). MATERIAL AND METHODS A total of 200 samples were prepared: Riva Silver, a silver-reinforced GIC; Equia Forte HT, a glass hybrid GIC; ChemFil Rock, a zinc-added GIC; and Ketac™ Molar Easymix. Using the agar diffusion test for antibacterial activity, 30 samples from each group were analyzed for Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacillus acidophilus, and Actinomyces naeslundii. The areas around the samples where no bacterial growth occurred were digitally measured and recorded. For cytotoxicity analysis, the WST-1 test was performed on 10 samples from each group using the L929 mouse fibroblast cell line. The fluoride release property was evaluated using an ion-selective electrode method on 10 samples from each group. RESULTS The group that used Ketac™ Molar Easymix showed the lowest antibacterial activity against S. mutans, L. acidophilus, and A. naeslundii. In all 3 days of cytotoxicity testing, the group that used Riva Silver was found to be the least toxic material, while the group that used ChemFil Rock did not have viable cells after the 1st day. In all 4 materials, fluoride release values gradually increased since the first day, with Ketac™ Molar Easymix having the highest fluoride release. CONCLUSIONS Of all the GICs tested, Ketac™ Molar Easymix demonstrated the least antibacterial activity despite having the highest fluoride release, while Riva Silver was found to be the least cytotoxic material.
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.