ArticleJournal of conservative dentistry and endodontics2024
Comparative evaluation of shear bond strength and modes of failure of five different reinforced glass ionomer restorative cements to TheraCal LC: An
Article in Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Evaluation of Tensile Bond Strength of Three Different Glass Ionomer Cements in Silver Diamine Fluoride Treated Carious Dentin: AnInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2026Article
- The Shear Bond Strength Between Calcium Silicate-Based Biomaterials and Glass Ionomer Restorative Materials: An In Vitro Comparative Study.Journal of functional biomaterials · 2026Article
- Decoding marginal adaptation and microleakage: A field emission scanning electron microscopy and stereomicroscopic evaluation of cavity liners under class II composite restorations.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
- Reinforcing bleached roots: A comparative study of intraorifice barriers.Journal of conservative dentistry and endodontics · 2026Article
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
Aim: The aim of the study is to evaluate and compare the shear bond strength (SBS) and modes of failure of different reinforced glass ionomer cement restorative materials such as GC IX, GC Gold Label 2 LC, Amalgomer CR, Equia Forte, and Secure Core Methodology: A total of 50 acrylic blocks, each containing a cylindrical hole in the center were prepared from self-cure acrylic resin and randomly divided into five groups and restored, namely Group A - TheraCal LC + GC Fuji IX, Group B - TheraCal LC + GC Gold Label 2 LC, Group C - TheraCal LC + Amalgomer CR, Group D - TheraCal LC + Equia Forte, and Group E - TheraCal LC + Secure Core Results: Equia Forte showed the highest SBS, while GC type IX showed the lowest SBS with TheraCal LC. Conclusion: Equia Forte can be the restorative material of choice when TheraCal LC is used as a base materials for better clinical efficacy.
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.