ArticleActa odontologica latinoamericana : AOL2024
Effect of two oxygen-inhibiting agents on the surface microhardness of giomer restorative materials.
Article in Acta odontologica latinoamericana : AOL, 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.
- Influence of modeling liquids and adhesive agents on the surface properties of resin composite.BMC oral health · 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Giomers are bioactive hybrid restorative materials consisting of composite resin and glass ionomer filler pre-reacted on the surface, which maintain acceptable clinical qualities over time. One of the main factors that explains this is the surface hardness that is achieved by inhibiting the oxygen layer. Aim: To compare the effect of blue and conventional Mylar strips used as oxygen inhibiting agents on the surface microhardness of giomer restorative materials. Materials and Method: A total 96 giomer specimens were prepared in disc-shaped molds 2 mm tall x 5 mm in diameter (ISO 4049: 2019-05). The specimens were grouped according to type of giomer: Beautifil II (BII) or Beautifil II LS (BIILS), and according to the type of Mylar strip: conventional, blue, or control group without strip. They were subsequently subjected to the Knoop (KHN) microhardness test. The database was analyzed with Stata SE v18 statistical software, and two-way ANOVA was performed. Results: Interaction was found between the type of giomer and Mylar strip (p=0.039). Significant differences were found between surface microhardness values according to the type of giomer (0.001) and the type of Mylar strip (0.001). Beautifil II LS presented significant differences between conventional Mylar strip vs. without Mylar strip (43.58 ± 1.65 vs. 40.44 ± 2.12) and between blue Mylar strip and without Mylar strip (44.69 ± 1.75 vs. 40.44 ± 2.12). In the Bonferroni Post hoc test, a significant difference was found between Conventional Mylar Strip and without Mylar Strip (p=0.001) and Blue Mylar Strip and without Mylar Strip (p=0.001). Conclusion: The use of blue and conventional Mylar strips inhibits the oxygen layer on the Beautifil II and Beautifil II LS giomers, endowing them with high values of surface microhardness.
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.