Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39773619›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2025

The evaluation of internal adaptation of glass ionomer restorations applied after the use of different cavity conditioners in primary teeth: an in-vitro study.

Sümeyye Gürler, Akif Demirel, Arda Buyuksungur

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sümeyye GürlerFaculty of Dentistry, Pediatric Dentistry Department, Ankara University, Ankara, 06560, Turkey.ORCID 0009-0005-9793-6618
Akif DemirelFaculty of Dentistry, Pediatric Dentistry Department, Ankara University, Ankara, 06560, Turkey. akifdemirel@ankara.edu.tr.ORCID 0000-0002-1433-0452
Arda BuyuksungurFaculty of Dentistry, Basic Medical Sciences Department, Ankara University, Ankara, 06560, Turkey.ORCID 0000-0002-1978-2888

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis study aimed to comparatively evaluate the effects of different cavity conditioners on internal adaptation (IA) of glass ionomer-based restorative materials applied to primary teeth.

methods80 extracted primary second molar teeth were randomly assigned to four different cavity conditioner groups [10% polyacrylic acid, 20% polyacrylic acid, 17% ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA), 35% phosphoric acid]. Class V cavities were prepared on the buccal surfaces and relevant cavity conditioners were applied, and the samples in each cavity conditioner group were randomly assigned to glass hybrid (GHR) or conventional glass ionomer restoratives (CGIR). Subsequently, restorative materials were applied and all samples were thermocycled (5-55 °C, 5000 cycles) and IA were calculated volumetrically by using a Micro Computed Tomography (Micro-CT) system. IA values was recorded as % and data were analyzed with Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis H tests. Statistical significance level was set as 5%.

results35% phosphoric acid showed the lowest mean internal voids (between the cavity-restoration interface) for both restorative materials (for GHR = 0.180% and for CGIR = 0.936%). However, the highest mean internal voids for GHR and CGIR were observed after the use of 17% EDTA (2.438%) and 10% polyacrylic acid (8.483%), respectively. For both restorative materials, 20% polyacrylic acid showed the second lowest mean internal voids (for GHR = 0.321% and for CGIR = 3.580%), however, no significant difference was found between 35% phosphoric acid and 20% polyacrylic acid (p = 0.941 for GHR and p = 0.061 for CGIR). In the samples applied the cavity conditioners other than 17% EDTA, glass hybrid restoratives showed significantly higher IA quality than conventional glass ionomer (p = 0.0001 for 10% polyacrylic acid, p = 0.001 for 20% polyacrylic acid and p = 0.002 for 35% phosphoric acid).

conclusionsWithin the limitations of this study, 35% phosphoric acid and 20% polyacrylic acid were determined to be the most successful cavity conditioners in terms of IA, and glass hybrid restorative system showed superior IA quality than conventional glass ionomer. Further studies are needed to confirm the present results.

Indexed as

Glass Ionomer CementsTooth, DeciduousAcrylic ResinsDental Cavity PreparationDental Marginal AdaptationDental Restoration, PermanentEdetic AcidHumansIn Vitro TechniquesMaterials TestingMolarPhosphoric AcidsX-Ray MicrotomographyAcrylic Resinscarbopol 940Edetic AcidGlass Ionomer CementsPhosphoric AcidsCavity conditionersGlass hybrid systemsInternal adaptationMicro computed tomographyPrimary teeth

Identifiers

PMID39773619
PMCPMC11705701

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.