ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2023
Comparative Evaluation of Fluoride Release from Four Commercially Available Pediatric Dental Restorative Materials.
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of acidic and neutral fluoride gels on surface microhardness and morphology of composite resins used in pediatric dentistry: an in vitro factorial study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- AnInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2026Article
- Fluoride release and recharge from bioactive resinsJournal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2025Article
- In Vitro Cytotoxicity Evaluation of Nanosized Hydroxyapatite and Fluorapatite on Cell Lines and Their Relevance to the Alveolar Augmentation Process.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2025Article
- An in vitro study of fluoride-preloaded halloysite nanotubes to enhance the fluoride release in conventional and resin-modified glass ionomer cements.The Saudi dental journal · 2024Article
- Fluoride release and flexural strength of four ion-releasing restorative materials: An in vitro comparative study.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2024Article
- Comparative evaluation of fluoride release from different modifications of glass ionomer dental restorative material in primary teeth at different time intervals: An ex vivo study.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the fluoride-releasing abilities of commercially available restorative materials such as-Activa™ BioActive-restorative™ material, Zirconomer (Shofu Inc), Beautifil Materials and methods: A total of 40 disk specimens (10 of each material) were placed into distilled/deionized (DI) water and the fluoride release was measured for 30 days. Fluoride ion measurement was performed at the end of the 1st, 3rd, 7th, 15th, and 30th day under normal atmospheric conditions by fluoride ion selective electrode (F-ISE) (Orion 9609 BNWP, Ionplus SureFlow fluoride electrode, Thermo Scientific, United States of America) coupled to a benchtop analyzer (Hachsen Ion+). Results: All the materials included in the study exhibited fluoride release. Although there were differences in the amounts of fluoride released between Activa™, Zirconomer, and GC Gold Label 9 the mean difference between these three groups was not found to be statistically significant. Beautifil Conclusion: Among the above-compared materials Activa™ and Zirconomer exhibit both improved mechanical properties as well as they have fluoride-releasing ability so can be preferred over conventional glass ionomer restorations. How to cite this article: Dhumal RS, Chauhan RS, Patil V,
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.