ArticleCureus2023
Assessment of Occlusal Load Strength of Glass Ionomer Cement and Composite in Class V Cavities: An In-Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Evaluation of fracture resistance of class V premolar restorations reinforced with Ribbond and InFibra fibers using two placement techniques: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Fabrication and characterization of reinforced glass ionomer cement by zinc oxide and hydroxyapatite nanoparticles.Heliyon · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGlass ionomer cement (GIC) is widely used in dentistry due to its chemical adhesion to dental tissues, biocompatibility, and anti-cariogenic potential but they have relatively weak mechanical properties. Resin composites have been widely regarded as the first choice for direct restorations but their polymerization shrinkage has remained a major problem. It has the potential to cause tooth debonding. The composite interface leads to postoperative sensitivity, secondary caries, enamel cracks, and microleakage. A restorative material's capacity to withstand occlusal stresses and support the remaining tooth structure depends on this property. Although class V restorations are predominantly done with GIC, this study was done to compare the strength of composite with the same. The GIC restore glass which is commonly used was tested against restofill composite. The main objective of conducting the study was to compare the compressive strength of the composite vs GIC in cervical cavities. So the aim of the study is to assess the occlusal load strength of GIC and composite in class V cavities using the universal testing machine. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis study was employed as an in vitro study involving 20 natural central incisor teeth without any carious lesions. Class V cavity preparation was done and the selected teeth were divided into two groups of ten each. The cavities were filled with D Tech Restore GIC and composite restorations (restofill), respectively, polished, and then subjected to testing. An eccentric load was applied to the tooth structure using an Instron (Instron E3000 Electropuls, Instron, Norwood, United States) - Universal testing machine with a cross-head speed of 1mm per minute, and the stresses were further analyzed in the presence of an occlusal loading test using a stainless steel jig of 1mm diameter which led to the sectioning of the tooth buccolingually under the applied load.
resultsAn independent t-test was used to assess the results, and it was concluded that the results were statistically significant (p<0.05) at p=0.034.
conclusionConclusively, the results suggested that the occlusal load strength of the composite is greater when compared to GIC.
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.