ArticleCureus2024
Miswak-Infused Glass Ionomer Cement: A Comparative In Vitro Analysis of Antibacterial Efficacy and Compressive Strength.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of propolis-modified glass ionomer cement on antimicrobial activity and physico-mechanical properties: a systematic review.Odontology · 2026Pooled it
- Comparison of Antimicrobial Efficacy and Physical Properties of Antibiotic-Modified, Propolis-Added, and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGlass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations are commonly used in primary dentition, due to their aesthetic appeal, self-adhesive nature, and biocompatibility. However, the material's limited antibacterial activity and inadequate mechanical strength highlight the necessity for modifying the material.
aimThe study aims to evaluate and compare the antimicrobial potency and compressive strength of GIC-incorporated Miswak extract with that of conventional GIC. MATERIALS AND
methodsAfter obtaining the Miswak extract, a modified GIC was formulated by combining the extract with the conventional GIC powder and liquid components, in three different ratios (Powder: Extract and Liquid), Group I (2:1:1), Group II (3:1:2), Group III (3:2:1), and the Group IV as control, which consist of unmodified/conventional GIC. To evaluate and compare the antibacterial efficacy of the modified and unmodified GIC, standard strains of
resultsThe results proved that the antimicrobial properties of Miswak containing GIC performed better against
conclusionIt can be concluded that Group I was found to be better in terms of both antimicrobial properties and compressive strength, where no significant difference in compressive strength was identified when comparing Group I with Group IV. Thus, the overall study depicts that a lesser concentration of extract can be the best option in terms of good antimicrobial properties without altering its strength. Hence, the Miswak containing GIC could be a promising restorative material; further studies should include considering intraoral variables such as masticatory stress, moisture levels and in-vivo tests of this combination.
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.