ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2025
Comparative Evaluation of Surface Microhardness of Zirconia-reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement after Immersion in an Acidic Drink: An
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparative Analysis of Erosion and Erosion-Abrasion Resistance of Bioactive Glass Ionomer-Based Restorative Materials: A Surface Characterization Study.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
- Erratum: Comparative Evaluation of Surface Microhardness of Zirconia-reinforced Glass Ionomer Cement and Conventional Glass Ionomer Cement after Immersion in an Acidic Drink: AnInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Microhardness is one of the most imperative physical characteristics for comparative study of dental material. Under acidic conditions, restorative materials experience degradation over time, which can be envisaged by changes in the surface characteristics such as downturn in hardness. Thus, we aim to assess the effect of acidic drink on microhardness of zirconia-reinforced glass ionomer cement (GIC) and conventional GIC. Materials and methods: Zirconia-reinforced GIC and conventional GIC were chosen for this present study. A total of 60 study pellets were prepared and divided into two groups. Group A consisted of 30 pellets of zirconia-reinforced GIC and group B consisted of 30 pellets of conventional GIC. Baseline readings of microhardness were taken by Vickers hardness testing machine. The samples of groups A and B were further divided into three subgroups. Subgroup 1: immersed in distilled water for 1 day (control). Subgroup 2: immersed in Coca-Cola for 1 day. Subgroup 3: immersed in Coca-Cola for 7 days. Surface hardness values were recorded after 1 day for subgroups 1 and 2 and after 7 days for subgroup 3. Results: The surface microhardness of zirconia-reinforced GIC was significantly higher than conventional GIC when intergroup comparison was made. There was no statistically significant difference in microhardness of both conventional GIC and zirconia-reinforced GIC from baseline values after 1 day of immersion either in distilled water or Coca-Cola. Microhardness of both conventional GIC and zirconia-reinforced GIC showed a significant rise from baseline after immersion in Coca-Cola after 7 days. Conclusion: Both the materials tested resisted acidic challenge; however, zirconia-reinforced GIC showed greater microhardness and can be considered as an alternative material of choice for conventional GIC. How to cite this article: Kour T, Shahi P, Sogi S,
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.