ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2023
Assessment of Flexural and Compressive Strengths of EQUIA, GC Gold Hybrid, and Conventional GIC Restorative Materials.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- AnBioinformation · 2026Article
- Surface treatments and coatings of hybrid glass ionomer cement to improve mechanical and physical properties.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Solubility and Sorption of Equia Forte, GC Gold, and Traditional GIC Restorative Materials.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025Article
- Comparison of Compressive and Flexural Strength Among Three Types of Glass Ionomer Cements: An In Vitro Study.Cureus · 2025Article
- Comparative Evaluation of Fluoride Release/Uptake and Physical Properties of Self-adhesive GC Gold Label Hybrid and Antibiotic-modified Glass Ionomer Cement: AnInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2025Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This Materials: group I-EQUIA Forte GIC, group II-GC GH, and group III-conventional GIC for compressive and flexural strength evaluation. With a specially made Teflon mold, thirty-six cylindrical test specimens measuring 4 mm × 5 mm in dimension were created. They were then placed in 20 mL of deionized water and kept at 37°C for 3 hours every day for 30 days. Later, they were subjected to compressive strength and flexural strength using the universal testing machine. Statistics were used to examine each and every result. Result and Conclusion: EQUIA had the highest average compressive strength and flexural strength, whereas traditional GIC restorative material had the lowest.
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.