ArticleBrazilian dental journal2025
In vitro evaluation of the enhancement of glass ionomer cement features by using chitosan and nanodiamond.
Article in Brazilian dental journal, 2025. 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.
- Effect of Nanodiamond Incorporation on the Surface, Mechanical, and Tribological Properties of Glass Ionomer Cement.Journal of functional biomaterials · 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the influence of chitosan and nanodiamond incorporation on the surface, optical, and mechanical properties of glass ionomer cement. Total 56 samples (5 mm diameter and 2 mm thickness) were prepared and divided into 4 groups according to the incorporation of chitosan and nanodiamond on Fuji II glass ionomer cement: Control group: no incorporation; 10%CH group: incorporation of 10% chitosan; 10%ND group: incorporation of 10% of nanodiamond; 5%CH-5%ND group: incorporation of 5% chitosan and 5% nanodiamond (n=14). Analyses of color stability, surface roughness, fluorescence intensity, microhardness, morphology, and chemical composition were investigated. Additionally, water sorption, hygroscopic expansion, contact angle, surface free energy, and total free energy of interaction were also assessed. After the initial readings, the samples were individually stored in red wine solution for 28 days. Data were subjected to ANOVA followed by Tukey´s test (α=.05). Aging in wine solution altered the optical, mechanical, and surface properties of glass ionomer cement regardless of the incorporation of the compound (P<.05). 10% chitosan-incorporated glass ionomer cement promoted higher color alteration, surface roughness, and water sorption after aging (P<.05). 10% nanodiamond-incorporated glass ionomer cement showed higher microhardness compared to the other groups before aging (P<.05), however there were no differences among them after aging (P>.05). In general, no differences between the 5% chitosan- and 5% nanodiamond-incorporated glass ionomer cement and control groups were noted on the evaluated analyses (P>.05). Thus, the incorporation of 5% chitosan and 5% nanodiamond is a satisfactory alternative for maintain the surface, optical, and mechanical properties of the glass ionomer cement.
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.