ArticleCureus2024
Experimental and Finite Element Analysis of Compressive Strength and Diametral Tensile Strength of Luting Cement: An In Vitro Study.
Article in Cureus, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of compressive and adhesive strengths of a hybrid ceramic and 5Y-PSZ zirconia cemented with three different materials.European journal of oral sciences · 2025Article
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
Background Strength parameters greatly influence the selection of luting agents. This study compared the compressive and diametral tensile strengths (DTS) of three luting cements. Materials and methods Three luting cements, conventional glass ionomer (CGI), resin-modified glass ionomer (RMGI), and resin cement (RC), were tested for compressive strength and DTS. Forty-two standardized specimens were prepared, measuring 4 mm by 6 mm for compressive tests and 6 mm by 3 mm for diametral tensile tests. The luting materials were prepared according to the manufacturers' instructions. Result Experimental mean compressive and diametral strengths and standard errors were calculated for each luting agent (n = 10). Analysis of variance was computed (p < 0.05), and multiple comparison tests were performed. RC showed significantly higher compressive strengths and DTS among the three tested luting cements, while the CGI showed the least. The results obtained by finite element analysis (FEA) for both tests closely matched the experimental results. Conclusion In this study, it was concluded that the mean compressive strength and DTS values of all three luting cements were significantly different. The resin luting cement exhibited the highest compressive strength and DTS, while the CGI exhibited the least.
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.