ArticleBMC oral health2024
Comparison of remineralization ability of tricalcium silicate and of glass ionomer cement on residual dentin: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bioactive restorative materials in dentistry: a comprehensive review of mechanisms, clinical applications, and future directions.Odontology · 2026Review
- Effect of eggshell nanoparticles and fluoride varnish, with and without diode laser, on dentinal tubule occlusion (An in vitro study).BMC oral health · 2026Article
- In Vitro Assessment of Corrosion Rate, Vickers Hardness and SEM Analysis of Glass Ionomer Cements and Calcium Silicate-Based Materials.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Bioactivity of Glass Carbomer Versus Conventional GICs in Sound Enamel and Dentine: A 12-Month SEM-EDS Study.Materials (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Comparative study of dentin remineralization with Nano-amorphous calcium phosphate-modified bioactive restoratives.Journal of oral biology and craniofacial researchArticle
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.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to compare the remineralization effects of a calcium silicate-based cement (Biodentine) and of a glass ionomer cement (GIC: Fuji IX) on artificially demineralized dentin.
methodsFour standard cavities were prepared in dentin discs prepared from 34 extracted sound human third molars. In each disc, one cavity was covered with an acid-resistant varnish before demineralization (Group 1). The specimens were soaked in a chemical demineralization solution for 96 h to induce artificial carious lesions. Thereafter, one cavity each was filled with Biodentine (Group 2) and GIC (Group 3), respectively, and one carious lesion was left unrestored as a negative control (Group 4). Next, specimens were immersed in simulated body fluid (SBF) for 21 days. After cross-sectioning the specimens, the Ca/P ratio was calculated in each specimen by using scanning electron microscopy-energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (SEM-EDX). Finally, data were analyzed using repeated-measures ANOVA with post-hoc Bonferroni correction.
resultsBoth cement types induced dentin remineralization as compared to Group 4. The Ca/P ratio was significantly higher in Group 2 than in Group 3 (p < 0.05).
conclusionThe dentin lesion remineralization capability of Biodentine is higher than that of GIC, suggesting the usefulness of the former as a bioactive dentin replacement material. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Biodentine has a higher remineralization ability than that of GIC for carious dentin, and its interfacial properties make it a promising bioactive dentin restorative material.
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.