ArticleBrazilian dental journal2024
Comparative study of physical-chemical properties of bioactive glass ionomer cement.
Article in Brazilian dental journal, 2024. 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.
- Article
- Effect of bioactive and conventional liners on marginal sealing and dentin bond strength of Class V resin composite restorations: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Bioactive Fillers in Bulk-Fill Composite Resins: A Comprehensive Review of the Effects on Polymerization Shrinkage Behavior and Mechanical Performance.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Surface Integrity of Widely Used Resin-Modified Glass Ionomers: New Findings Amid Limited Scientific Literature.Journal of clinical and experimental dentistry · 2026Review
- Fluoride Release from Pediatric Dental Restorative Materials: A Laboratory Investigation.Dentistry journal · 2025Article
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study analyzed the physical-chemical properties of bioactive ionomer materials. Cention N bioactive materials were evaluated chemically activated (CN) and light-cured (CN-LC), Equia Forte Fill (EQUI); conventional resin composite Filtek Z350 XT (Z350); resin glass ionomer cement Riva light Cure (RIVA) and flowable resin composite Filtek Bulk Fill Flow (BULK-F) were evaluated. Sixty specimens (n=10) were prepared for sorption (SR), solubility (SL), flexural strength (FS), shrinkage stress (SS), conversion degree (CD), microhardness (MI), and surface roughness (SR) tests. Non-cured and light-cured materials were assessed on FTIR. 30 human molar teeth were used in the bond strength test (BS). Data were subjected to ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey's test (5% of significance). EQUI showed more sorption in SR and no statistical difference from RIVA and CN-LC. CN group showed more solubility and EQUI presented less (p<0.05). BULK-F showed higher FS (MPa), without differences from CN and Z350, whereas EQUI presented the lowest FS not differing from RIVA. BULK-F and CN-LC showed more shrinkage stress differing from EQUI. CN-LC and CN showed higher CD differing from the other which showed no differences (p>0.05) between them. EQUI showed the highest hardness (p<0.05) in MI. There were no differences (p>0.05) in SR (µm). Z350 and BULK-F presented higher BS, whereas CN-LC showed the lowest, although not differing from EQUI and RIVA. Equia Forte's solubility and microhardness make it a good alternative as a restorative material. Cention N degree of conversion and flexural strength making it an esthetic option to amalgam.
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.