ArticleHeliyon2024
Comparison of retention of cast crown luted with glass ionomer cement in presence of two different types of desensitizer agent on extracted teeth-an in vitro study.
Article in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Dentin hypersensitivity is common problem between procedure of vital tooth preparation and cementation procedure of final prosthesis. So, use of desensitizing agents may be helpful to minimize the errors. Aim: To Compare retention of cast crown luted with glass ionomer cement in presence of two different types of desensitizer agent on extracted teeth. Material: Desensitizing agents used are bioactive Glass and GLUMA, Glass Ionomer Cement has been used as luting agent. Other required items are crown cutting bur, airotor handpiece, spatula, glass Cement carrier, microtip brush, universal testing machine. Methodology: In this study total number of 60 premolars with good coronal anatomy, which are extracted for orthodontic purposes, were collected from Department of oral and maxillofacial surgery, Institute of dental Sciences. Then they were mounted individually in die stone block. Tooth preparation for the metal prosthesis of maxillary and mandibular premolars was carried out following the standard principles of tooth preparation use milling surveyor and they are grouped randomly into Group A- Luting cement (Control group), group B- Luting cement + Kulzer Gluma Desensitizer, group C- Luting cement + Bioactive glass. After fabrication of metal coping, tooth conditioning has been carried out then cementation was done using GIC. Retention of coping was checked using universal testing machine. Result: A comparison was made for the mean stress value within three groups. GIC + Bioactive had the highest mean stress (6.52 ± 1.81) followed by Control group (3.88 ± 2.37). GIC ± Gluma had the least mean stress of 2.59 ± 1.19. Conclusion: Bioactive glass + GIC exhibited higher retentive value as compared to prosthesis luted only with GIC and GIC + Gluma. So clinically it can be inferred that for vital tooth preparation bioactive glass can be used as desensitizing agent for the intermediate period till the permanent crown is luted.
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.