ArticleBioinformation2024
Tensile strength of conventional glass ionomer cement and silver reinforced glass ionomer cement.
Article in Bioinformation, 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.
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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A comparative analysis and assessment of the compressive strength (CS) and diametral tensile strength (DTS) between conventional glass ionomer cement (C-GIC) and a silver-reinforced GIC (S-GIC) variant is of interest. Ten specimens of both C-GIC (GC Fuji II, Japan) and S-GIC (Riva Silver, SDI, Australia) were fabricated for the evaluation of compressive strength, and an identical number of samples were created for the examination of tensile strength. These specimens were then tested using a universal testing apparatus. The results exhibited that both the compressive and diametral tensile strengths were significantly greater for the S-GIC cement in comparison to the C-GIC, with a notable p-value of 0.001. The findings suggest that S-GIC may be considered a viable alternative to conventional 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.